De Morgan's Laws

In logic, De Morgan's laws (or De Morgan's theorem) are the two rules of propositional logic, boolean algebra and set theory
not (P and Q) = (not P) or (not Q)
not (P or Q) = (not P) and (not Q)
which allow us to move a negation over a conjunction or a disjunction. These are named for nineteenth century logician and mathematician Augustus De Morgan, although maybe unjustly (according to the opinion of Polish historian Bocheński in his History of Formal Logic), since they were already known to Greek logicians since Aristotle. In formal logic the laws are usually written
\neg(P\wedge Q)=(\neg P)\vee(\neg Q)
\neg(P\vee Q)=(\neg P)\wedge(\neg Q)
and in set theory
(A\cap B)^C=A^C\cup B^C
(A\cup B)^C=A^C\cap B^C.
Common uses of De Morgan's rules are in digital circuit design, where it is used to manipulate the types of logic gates, and in formal logic, where it is one of the rules used to transform logical formulae into negation normal form, a prerequisite for conjunctive or disjunctive normal form. Computer programmers use them to change a complicated statement like IF ... AND (... OR ...) THEN ... into its opposite. They are also often useful in computations in elementary probability theory. Each propositional expression P(p, q, ...) depending on elementary propositions p, q, ... has a De Morgan dual in which each elementary proposition is replaced by its negation and conjunction and disjunction are interchanged. It can be written as
\neg \mbox{P}^d(\neg p, \neg q, ...).
This idea can be generalised to include the universal and existential quantifiers in classical logic as De Morgan duals, as follows:
\forall x \, P(x) \equiv \neg \exists x \, \neg P(x),
\exists x \, P(x) \equiv \neg \forall x \, \neg P(x).
To relate these quantifier dualities to the De Morgan laws, set up a model with some small number of elements in its domain D, such as
D = {a, b, c}.
Then
\forall x \, P(x) \equiv P(a) \wedge P(b) \wedge P(c)
and
\exists x \, P(x) \equiv P(a) \vee P(b) \vee P(c) .
But, using De Morgan's laws,
P(a) \wedge P(b) \wedge P(c) \equiv \neg (\neg P(a) \vee \neg P(b) \vee \neg P(c))
and
P(a) \vee P(b) \vee P(c) \equiv \neg (\neg P(a) \wedge \neg P(b) \wedge \neg P(c)),
verifying the quantifier dualities in the model. Then, the quantifier dualities can be extended further to modal logic, relating the necessity and possibility operators:
\Box p \equiv \neg \Diamond \neg p ,
\Diamond p \equiv \neg \Box \neg p .
The relationship of these modal operators to the quantification can be understood by setting up models using Kripke semantics.

See also

 

<< PreviousWord BrowserNext >>
ludwig von bertalanffy
alan bush
soil salination
uriel acosta
duchy
grand duke
glenn miller
ginger rogers
list of poets
gigabit ethernet
saint barthlemy
zilog
manuel castells
havamal
toronto
sultan
shah
gironde
air france
hue
the big blue
logogram
joseph von fraunhofer
graeae
fulgence bienvene
phorcydes
airline deregulation act
bruce willis
inge de bruijn
constantine xi
merc rodoreda
anamoose, north dakota
babadag
peter ii of aragon
maurice i
post correspondence problem
norman tebbit
combined arms
e. m. forster
henri de toulouse lautrec
internet dynamics
bombing of dresden in world war ii
boyar
geography of iran