본문으로 바로 이동 / Skip to content

PROOF 112

Prove.

De Morgan's laws

In propositional logic.

A way to read this proof

First separate what is assumed from what is to be proved. At each step, ask which definition or earlier result permits the move. If it is unclear, return to that premise rather than skipping to the conclusion.

Definition D1

Two propositions are equivalent, written ⟺, when they have the same value under every assignment of truth values.

Proof.

Equivalence is not the claim that two expressions mean the same thing, but the claim that their values always move together.convention

∎

Definition D2

x ∈ A ∩ B means (x ∈ A) ∧ (x ∈ B), x ∈ A ∪ B means (x ∈ A) ∨ (x ∈ B), and x ∈ Aᶜ means ¬(x ∈ A).

Proof.

The three set operations are conjunction, disjunction, and negation carried over to membership.convention

∎

Lemma L1

Every proposition p is true or false.

Proof.

(1)p ∨ ¬pA4
(2)The disjunction is true, so p is true or ¬p is true.(1), A2
(3)If ¬p is true, then p is false.A3
(4)Hence p is true or false.(2), (3)

∎

Lemma L2

In each of the four cases of assigning true or false to p and q, the values of ¬(p ∧ q) and ¬p ∨ ¬q are equal.

Proof.

(1)p true, q true: p ∧ q is true, so ¬(p ∧ q) is false. ¬p and ¬q are both false, so ¬p ∨ ¬q is false as well.A1, A2, A3
(2)p true, q false: p ∧ q is false, so ¬(p ∧ q) is true. ¬q is true, so ¬p ∨ ¬q is true as well.A1, A2, A3
(3)p false, q true: p ∧ q is false, so ¬(p ∧ q) is true. ¬p is true, so ¬p ∨ ¬q is true as well.A1, A2, A3
(4)p false, q false: p ∧ q is false, so ¬(p ∧ q) is true. ¬p and ¬q are both true, so ¬p ∨ ¬q is true as well.A1, A2, A3
(5)In all four cases the two expressions have equal values.(1), (2), (3), (4)

∎

Theorem T1

For all propositions p, q, ¬(p ∧ q) ⟺ ¬p ∨ ¬q

Proof.

(1)p is true or false, and so is q.L1
(2)Hence there are only four ways of assigning values to p and q.(1)
(3)In all four cases the two expressions have equal values.L2
(4)The values agree under every assignment, so the two expressions are equivalent.(2), (3), D1

∎

Theorem T2

For all propositions p, q, ¬(p ∨ q) ⟺ ¬p ∧ ¬q

Proof.

(1)T1 holds for all propositions, so putting ¬p in place of p and ¬q in place of q gives ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q) ⟺ ¬¬p ∨ ¬¬qT1
(2)¬¬p ⟺ p and ¬¬q ⟺ qA5
(3)¬(¬p ∧ ¬q) ⟺ p ∨ q(1), (2), E
(4)Negating both sides gives ¬¬(¬p ∧ ¬q) ⟺ ¬(p ∨ q)(3), E
(5)¬¬(¬p ∧ ¬q) ⟺ ¬p ∧ ¬qA5
(6)¬(p ∨ q) ⟺ ¬p ∧ ¬q(4), (5), E

∎

Corollary C

For subsets A, B of a universal set, (A ∩ B)ᶜ = Aᶜ ∪ Bᶜ

Proof.

(1)x ∈ (A ∩ B)ᶜ ⟺ ¬(x ∈ A ∩ B)D2
(2)       ⟺ ¬((x ∈ A) ∧ (x ∈ B))(1), D2, E
(3)       ⟺ ¬(x ∈ A) ∨ ¬(x ∈ B)(2), T1
(4)       ⟺ (x ∈ Aᶜ) ∨ (x ∈ Bᶜ)(3), D2, E
(5)       ⟺ x ∈ Aᶜ ∪ Bᶜ(4), D2
(6)The two sets have the same elements, so (A ∩ B)ᶜ = Aᶜ ∪ Bᶜ(1), (5), A6
(7)In the same way, T2 gives (A ∪ B)ᶜ = Aᶜ ∩ Bᶜ.T2, D2, A6

∎

Remark

Can A4 be removed from this proof?

Computing the four cases and asserting that those four cases are all there are, are two different things. Check which rests on the excluded middle.