2

Does this statement mean that you can represent true and false without using AND or OR?

I figured out that $ \lnot A\,\text{nand}\, A = \text{true}$

But how can I represent $ \text{false} $ without using AND or OR... or does the question not imply this restriction?

3 Answers3

4

$(A \mid A)$ is the same as $\neg A$, so to get "false", just do $\top \mid \top \iff ( ( A \mid A ) \mid A ) \mid ( ( A \mid A ) \mid A )$

A.S
  • 9,016
  • 2
  • 28
  • 63
1

¬A can be represented as (A nand A).

So, basically swap ¬A with (A nand A) ==> (A nand A) nand A) which will always be true.

Now, to represent false in only nand ==> you simply take the previous answer and add at the beginning not.

¬( (A nand A) nand A)), since we know nand can only be false if both cases is True then we use the

[ (A nand A) nand A)] nand [ (A nand A) nand A)] = false

FSEL
  • 11
  • 1
0

How about this:

$(\lnot A\operatorname{nand}A)\operatorname{nand}(\lnot A\operatorname{nand}A)$

As each expression in the brackets will evaluate to true, the overall expression would be the negation after the and which would always be false.

Graham Kemp
  • 129,094
JB King
  • 3,644