Module 5- 3

Truth Tables, Equivalent Statements, and Tautologies

Specific Objectives
At the end of this lesson, the students will be able to:
1. Construct truth tables for compound statements.
2. Define and identify equivalent statements
3. Define and identify Tautology statements

Introduction
In the previous section, we defined the truth table for the negation of a statement,
conjunction, disjunction, conditional and biconditional statements. In this section, we will
discuss the construction of the truth table of compound statements involving
combinations of these types of compound statements. Then we shall proceed to the
definition of the equivalent and tautology statements. After this, we shall use the
construction of truth tables in identifying determining equivalent and tautology
statements.

Construction of Truth Tables

In computing the truth values of compound statements, the rule is like those used
to evaluate algebraic expressions. First, evaluate the expressions within the inner most
parentheses, then evaluate the expressions within the next inner most set of
parentheses, and so forth until you have the truth values for the complete expression.

Example 5.10
Example 1
1. Construct the truth table for the statement (p ∨ q) ∧ (∼ q ∧ p).
Solution.
To construct the truth table, follow the following:
⇒ Set up columns for each simple and compound statements that are found in the
given statement. These are columns for p, q, ∼ q, p ∨ q, (∼ q ∧ p), and (p ∨ q) ∧ (∼ q ∧
p).
⇒ In the p and q columns, fill in all the logical possible combinations of Ts and Fs.
⇒ Fill the column of ∼ q by the opposite truth values in the column q since this column
is the negation of the statement q.
⇒ Use the truth table for disjunction to fill up the column p∨q using the truth values in
columns p and q.
⇒ Use the truth table for conjunction to fill up the truth values of the column ∼ q ∧ p
using appropriate truth values.
⇒ Finally, use the table for conjunction to fill up the truth values in column (p ∨ q) ∧ (∼
q ∧ p) using the corresponding computed truth values of the columns and p ∨ q and ∼ q
∧ p.

The next example is the truth table for compound statements that contains three
simple statements p, q, and r.

Example 5.11. Construct the truth table for the statement (p ∨ q) ∧ r.

Solution. Set up columns for p, q, r, p∨q, and (p ∨ q)∧r. Fill in the columns p, q,
rwith all the logically possible combinations of Ts and Fs, as shown Table 5.8.
 By similar argument as the solution in Example 1, the truth table for the
statement (p ∨ q) ∧ r is given in Table 5.9. Sometimes the truth value of the simple
statements in the compound statement are given. To compute for the truth value of the
compound statement, we do not need to complete the truth table. Instead, we set up
appropriate columns, use the given truth values for each column and solve for the
required truth value of the statement using appropriate truth tables.

Example 5.12. Find the truth value of the compound statement (p ∨ q) → r if the truth
values of p, q, and r are T, F, and T, respectively.

Solution.
A convenient way to solve the above problem is to set up columns p, q, r, ∼ q, p
∨ q, and (p∨∼ q) → r. Then fill in the given truth value for the columns p, q, r. Since q is
T, ∼ q is F. Consequently, since p is T, p ∨ q is T. By the truth table of conditional
statement, the truth value of (p ∨ q) → risT. The summary of this process is shown
Table 5.10.
 The following remark determines the required number of rows in the truth table of
a compound statement. Remark 3. If a compound statement consists of k variables,
each variable represents a simple statement, then the truth table for the given
compound statement contains 2k rows. For example, if the compound statement
consists of two simple statements, p and q, then there the number of rows of its truth
table is 22 . If k = 3, then 23 = 8, and so on.
Logically Equivalent Statements
Two statements may be stated in different ways but say the same thing. For
example, the statements “ Five is less than 8” and “ 8 is greater than 5”are two different
ways saying the same thing. These statements are called logically equivalent (or simply
equivalent) statements. We give the definition of equivalent statements.

Definition 5.11(Equivalent statements)p and q are two statements. Then p and q are
said to be logically equivalent (or simply equivalent), denoted by p ≡ q, if they both
have the same truth values for all possible truth values of their simple statements.
Example 5.13. Show that the statements ∼ (p ∧ q) and ∼ p ∨ q are equivalent
statements.
Solution.
Do the following procedure. ⇒ Construct the truth table with one column for the truth
values of ∼ (p ∧ q) and another column for the truth values of p ∨ q, as shown in the
Table 5.11.⇒ Since the two statements have the same truth value for all possible truth
values of their simple statements ( see the last two columns of the table), the
statements ∼ (p ∧ q) and ∼ p ∨∼ q are equivalent.
 We give an illustration to show that the two statements are not logically
equivalent.

Example 5.14. Show that the statements ∼ (p ∧ q) and ∼ p∧∼ q are not equivalent.
Solution.
First, construct the truth table. As shown in Table 5.12, it can be observed that
the truth values of the two statements are not the same in the second and third row.
Hence, the truth values of the two statements are not the same for all possible truth
values of their simple statements. That is, when p is T and q is F, or p is F and q is T.
Therefore, the statements ∼ (p ∧ q) and ∼ p ∧∼ q are not equivalent.
One of the useful equivalent statements is the De Morgan’s Law.

De Morgan’s Law
 For any statements p and q, the following hold. a. ∼ (p ∧ q) ≡∼ p∨∼ q b. ∼ (p ∨ r) ≡∼
p∧∼ r De Morgan’s Law states that the negation of the conjunction statement is
equivalent to the disjunction of the negation of each simple statement. And, the
negation of the disjunctive statement is equivalent to the conjunction of the negation of
each simple statement.

Example 5.15. Use De Morgans Law to write the given statement in an equivalent form.
1. It is not true that, he passed the examination or he played basketball.
2. I did not pass the test and I did not complete the course.

Solution. The equivalent statements are as follows:

1. He did not pass the examination and he did not play basketball.
2. It is not true that, I passed the test or I completed the course.

Remark 4.
De Morgans Law is especially useful in determining the negation of a statement.
Example 5.16.
Use De Morgan’s Law to find the negation of 3 ≤ x ≤ 8.

Solution.
The inequality 3 ≤ x ≤ 8 means that 3 ≤ x and x ≤ 8.
By De Morgan’s Law, the negation of this is equivalent to 3 ≤ x or x ≤ 8. This implies
that 3 > x or x > 8.
Using the truth table for conditional and biconditional statements, the following are
equivalent statements.
Definition 5.12. The equivalent forms of conditional and biconditional statements are
given below
(i.) Conditional: p → q ≡∼ p ∨ r
(ii.) Biconditional: p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p)

Example 5.17. Write each the following in its disjunctive form

1. If I pass the try-out, then I will be a varsity player.
2. If there is no vaccine for COVID-19, then classes in the public schools will be
blended learning.

Solution. The following statements are equivalent to above example, respectively.

1. I cannot pass the try-out or I will be a varsity player.
2. There is a vaccine for COVID-19 or classes in the public schools will be blended
learning. The equivalent disjunctive form of the conditional statement can be used to
determine the negation of the statement p → q. Since p → q ≡∼ p ∨ r , the negation of
p → q is equivalent to the negation of ∼ p∨r.
By De Morgans Law, ∼ (∼ p ∨ r) ≡∼ (∼ p) ∧∼ r ≡ p ∧∼ r.
Equivalently, we have the following.
Negation of the conditional statement
The negation of the conditional statement is given below. ∼ (∼ p ∨ r) ≡ p ∧∼ r.

Example 5.18. Write the negation of each conditional statement.

1. If I meet the deadline, I will go out with my friends. 2. If x 2 = 16, then x = 4 or x =
−4.
Solution.
1. I met the deadline and I did not go out with my friends.
2. x 2 = 1 and, x 6= 4 and x 6= −4.
We give here some known equivalent statements for reference purposes.

List of some equivalent statements

Given any statement variables p, q, andr, a tautology t and a contradiction c, the
following logical equivalences hold.
1. Commutative laws: p ∧ q ≡ q ∧ p p ∨ q ≡ q ∨ p
2. Associative laws: (p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r) (p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)
3. Distributive laws: p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r) p ∨(q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r)
4. Identity laws: p ∧ t ≡ p p ∨ c ≡ p
5. Negation laws: p∨∼ p ≡ t p∧∼ p ≡ c
6. Double negative law: ∼ (∼ p) ≡ p
7. Idempotent laws: p ∧ p ≡ p p ∨ p ≡ p
8. Universal bound laws: p ∨ t ≡ t p ∧ c ≡ c

Tautology and Contradictions

There are statements which are always true and there are statements that are always
false. Here, we discuss these kinds of statements. First, we give the definition of the
following terms.
Definition 5.13.
A tautology is a statement whose truth value is always true regardless of the truth
values of its individual simple statements. A statement which is a tautology is called
tautological statement.
A contradiction is a statement whose truth value is always false regardless of the truth
values of the individual simple statements that is a contradiction is a contradictory
statement.

The above definition is equivalent to the following remark.

Remark 5.
Using the truth table of the given symbolic statement,the following hold.
1. If the truth values in the column of the given symbolic statement are all true (T), then
the given statement is a tautology.
2. If the truth values in the column of the given symbolic statement are all false (F), then
the given statement is a contradiction.

Example 5.19.
Show that the statement p ∨∼ p is a tautology

Solution.
First, construct the truth table for the statement p ∨∼ p, as shown in Table 5.13. It can
be observed that the truth values in the column p ∨∼ p are all true. Therefore, this
statement is a tautology.
Example 5.20.
Show that the statement p ∧∼ p is a contradiction.
Solution.
First, construct the truth table for the statement p ∨∼ p, as shown in Table 5.14.
It can be observed that the truth values in the column p ∧∼ p are all false. Therefore,
this statement is a contradiction.
The next example shows the equivalent statements involving tautological and
contradictory statements.

Example 5.21.
Let p, t, and c are statements. If t is a tautology and c is a contradiction, show that and i.
p ∧ t ≡ p i. p ∧ c ≡ c Solution. The solution for (i.)and (ii.) can be done using a single
truth table.
Create columns p, c, t, p ∧ t and p ∧ c. The truth values of column of p is either T or F.
Since t is a tautology, the truth values column of t are all T. On the other hand, the truth
values of column of c are all F since c is a contradiction. Then compute the truth values
of p ∧ t ≡ p p ∧ c ≡ c. The results are shown in Table 5.15.
It can be observed that the truth values of the columns of p ∧ t and p are identical. Thus,
these two statements are equivalent. Similarly, the statements p ∧ c and c are
equivalent. Based on the Example 5.21, we have the following remark.
Remark 6.
For a given statement, the following statements hold.
1. The conjunction of any given statement and a tautological statement is equivalent to
the given statement.
2. The conjunction of any given statement and a contradictory statement is a statement
that is a contradiction.
Practice Sheet
1. Write truth tables for the following statements (a) ∼ p ∧ q (b) p ∧ (q ∧ r) (c) (∼ q ∧ r) ∨
[p ∧ (q∧∼ r)] (d) (p → q) → (q ∨ r) (e) (p∧∼ r) ↔ (q ∨ r)
2. Determine the truth value of the statement given that p is a true (T) statement, q is a
false (F) statement, and r is a true (T) statement. (a) p ∨ (q∨∼ r) (b) (p∨∼ q) ∧ (p ∨ r) (c)
[(p ∧ q) ∧ r] ∨ [p ∧ (q∧∼ r)] (d) p → (q∨∼ r) (e) (p∧∼ r) ↔ (q ∨ r)
3. Determine whether the statements are logically equivalent.
In each case, construct a truth table and include a sentence justifying your answer.
(a) p ∨ (p ∧ q) and p
(b) p ∨ (q∧∼ p) and p ∨ q
(c) ∼ [p ∨ (q ∧ r)] and ∼ p ∧ (∼ q∨∼ r)
(d) ∼ p → (p ∨ r) and r
(e) ∼ (p → q) and p ∧∼ q
(f) p ↔∼ q and (p →∼ q) ∧ (∼ q → p)
4. Use truth tables to determine which of the statement forms are tautologies and which
are contradiction.
(a) (p ∧ q) ∨ [ p ∨ (p∧∼ q)]
(b) (p ∨ q) ∨ (∼ p ∨ q)
(c) p ∧ (∼ p ∨ q)