When reading the book Boolean Differential Equations(B. Steinbach, C. Posthoff), I stumbled upon the following demonstration of the orthogonality between the simple minimum and the simple derivative:
$$ \underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \wedge \frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_i}=\underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \wedge (\underset{x_i}{\min} \oplus \underset{x_i}{\max}f(x)))\ \ \ \ (0) \\ =\underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \oplus (\underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \wedge \underset{x_i}{\max}f(x))\ \ \ \ (1) \\ =\underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \wedge (1 \oplus \underset{x_i}{\max}f(x))\ \ \ \ (2) \\ =\underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \wedge \overline{\underset{x_i}{\max}f(x)}\ \ \ \ (3) \\ = 0 $$
Step (1) still makes sense to me, you apply the Distributive Law then the Idempotent Law, straightforward. However, the second step eludes me, what law was applied in it? And wouldn't it be simpler to just do this(starting from (1)) $$ =(\underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \oplus \underset{x_i}{\min}f(x)) \wedge (\underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \oplus \underset{x_i}{\max}f(x)) \\ =0 \wedge (\underset{x_i}{\min}f(x) \oplus \underset{x_i}{\max}f(x)) \\ =0 $$ anyway? Am I missing something very obvious?