P | Q | P implies Q | not Q implies not P |
T | T | T | T |
T | F | F | F |
F | T | T | T |
F | F | T | T |
Sunday, 30 November 2014
Proof by Cases
Some proofs need to be broken down into different cases, through which the whole proof can be evaluated. This makes proving complex proofs easier. In fact, I think we already used this method for proving equivalence. In class, we showed that an implication "P implies Q" is equivalent to its contrapositive "not Q implies not P" by showing:
In each of the four cases above, we showed that P implies Q is true if and only if not Q implies not P is true. Even when P is True and Q is False, both the implication and its contrapositive are False, which means the equivalence still stand. Also note that proof by cases work in a much broader environment than propositions involving boolean variables.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment