1

Define $ R \subseteq T xT $ as follows:

$ (x,y) \in R \iff (x\land y)\lor ( \lnot x\land \lnot y)=1$.

Show, using the laws of Boolean Algebra, that R is an equivalence relation. Hint: if $ A = B = 1 \;then\; A \land B \land C = A \land B \implies C = 1$

I am assuming that I just need to prove that $(x\land y)\lor ( \lnot x\land \lnot y)=1$

So, what I have did so far,

  1. $(x\land y)\lor ( \lnot x\land \lnot y) $
  2. $(x \lor ( \lnot x\land \lnot y)) \land ( y \lor ( \lnot x\land \lnot y)) $
  3. $ (( x \lor \lnot x) \land ( x \lor \lnot y)) \land ((y \lor \lnot x) \land ( y \lor \lnot y)) $
  4. $(1 \land (x \lor \lnot y)) \land ((y \lor \lnot x) \land 1)$
  5. $(x \lor \lnot y) \land (y \lor \lnot x)$

feel like I am chasing my tail here.

I have go about the question in the wrong direction, I should have prove it to be equivalence relation, which i already know how. My mistake for not writing the full question at first. Thanks

DSt_FTW
  • 41
  • 1
    Have you tried anything? –  Oct 09 '18 at 03:57
  • I see someone did the edit from (x /\ y)' to above x' /\ y', but is that true? I thought that it might be (x /\ y)' = x' / y' – DSt_FTW Oct 09 '18 at 03:59
  • aha, if it were $\lnot(x\land y)$ then it would be 1. –  Oct 09 '18 at 04:03
  • @Isabella can you explain to me? and I am looking for guide to write the formula down in here, once I understand I will edit my post and write what I have done so far. – DSt_FTW Oct 09 '18 at 04:06
  • You originally wrote $(x\land y)\lor\lnot(x\lor y)$ but this is not 1 or true (you can verify giving values of $0$ and $1$ to the variables) –  Oct 09 '18 at 04:09
  • Given any simple Boolean expression, my first instinct would be to go for a truth table. – Boshu Oct 09 '18 at 04:09
  • @ Sabyasachi, I see, but I need to prove it using boolean algebra law – DSt_FTW Oct 09 '18 at 04:31
  • 1
    @JacobManaker's answer shows that this is false. Are you sure you haven't mis-transcribed the problem? – 2'5 9'2 Oct 09 '18 at 04:40

1 Answers1

1

You do not need to prove that $(x\wedge y)\vee(\neg x\wedge\neg y)=1$ (in fact, the latter is false: in general take $x=0$ and $y=1$).

You need to show three things:

  1. For all $x$, you have $x~R~x$.
  2. For all $x$ and $y$ such that $x~R~y$, you have $y~R~x$.
  3. For all $x$, $y$, and $z$ such that $x~R~y$ and $y~R~z$, you have $x~R~z$.

Substituting the definition of $R$, you need to show

  1. For all $x$, you have $(x\wedge x)\vee(\neg x\wedge\neg x)=1$.
  2. For all $x$ and $y$, if $(x\wedge y)\vee(\neg x\wedge\neg y)=1$, then $(y\wedge x)\vee(\neg y\wedge\neg x)=1$.
  3. For all $x$, $y$, and $z$, if $(x\wedge y)\vee(\neg x\wedge\neg y)=1$ and $(y\wedge z)\vee(\neg y\wedge\neg z)=1$, then $(x\wedge z)\vee(\neg x\wedge\neg z)=1$.

The first is just idempotency of boolean operations, the second symmetry. The third requires you to "or" the givens together and apply distributivity. I'll leave the details to you.

  • can we let x = 1, y = 1? – DSt_FTW Oct 09 '18 at 04:37
  • @dst: counterexamples don’t work like that. Read Alex.Jordan’s comment: have you mistakenly made a typo? – Clayton Oct 09 '18 at 05:23
  • @ Clayton, I checked my question again and they are correct. the question is asking to prove that it is true. – DSt_FTW Oct 09 '18 at 05:28
  • @ Clayton, So I have misunderstood the question, apparently I am suppose to show that its a equivalence relation, ie. reflexive, symmetrical, transitive. – DSt_FTW Oct 12 '18 at 01:46