I am trying to convert some formulas into CNF even if I understood both concepts and rules of it I cannot always get a solution. For example I have this statement to convert: $(p\Leftrightarrow p)\Rightarrow (\neg p \wedge r)$. Applying the rules I get this formula (that I know it is right since the solution for both formulas is the same according to Wolfram) $(p \wedge \neg q) \vee (q \wedge \neg p) \vee (\neg p \wedge r)$. From this position I know I should apply some distributive law to "move the OR inside and the AND outside" but I really don't get how. I already know the result that is $(\neg p \vee \neg q) \wedge (p \vee q \vee r)$.
2026-03-25 02:57:25.1774407445
Conversion from PL to CNF
1.3k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in PROPOSITIONAL-CALCULUS
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Can we use the principle of Explosion to justify the definition of implication being True when the antecedent is False?
- Simplify $(P \wedge Q \wedge R)\vee(\neg P\wedge Q\wedge\neg R)\vee(\neg P\wedge\neg Q\wedge R)\vee(\neg P \wedge\neg Q\wedge\neg R)$
- Alternative theories regarding the differences between the material conditional and the indicative conditionals used in natural language?
- Translations into logical notation
- Is the negation of $(a\wedge\neg b) \to c = a \wedge\neg b \wedge\neg c$?
- I am kind of lost in what do I do from here in Propositional Logic Identities. Please help
- Boolean Functional completeness of 5 operator set in propositional logic
- Variables, Quantifiers, and Logic
- Comparison Propositional Logic
Related Questions in CONJUNCTIVE-NORMAL-FORM
- Is 3-CNF to 2-CNF generally possible (or in particular)?
- k-CNF formulae and formulae that are not equivalent to them
- Help converting ANF to XORNF if even possible.
- CNF with Nested Quantifiers
- How to convert to formula to disjunctive normal form (DNF)?
- How can I come from NOT x AND y OR NOT z to two formulas: NOT x OR NOT z and NOT y OR z
- Is this possible: ( neg X AND Y) OR neg Z <=> (neg X OR neg Z) AND (neg Y OR Z)
- Converting $\big( (A \lor B) \land ((B \leftrightarrow A) \to C) \big) \lor (C \to \neg A)$ to CNF.
- How to transform a knowledge base (CNF) from propositional logic in a set?
- Is this the disjunctive and conjunctive nromal form for my porpositional formula F?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
There are several options how you could apply distributive law. Here's one. The version I'm using says that $(A \land B) \lor C \equiv (A \lor C) \land (B \lor C)$. Let's apply this to your formula $$(p \land \lnot q) \lor (q \land \lnot p) \lor (\lnot p \land r)$$ Here you can set $A := p$, $B := \lnot q$ and $C := (q \land \lnot p) \lor (\lnot p \land r)$. Then distributivity yields $$(p \lor (q \land \lnot p) \lor (\lnot p \land r)) \land (\lnot q \lor (q \land \lnot p) \lor (\lnot p \land r))$$
We need to apply distributivity a few times more. Consider the left side first. $$(p \lor (q \land \lnot p) \lor (\lnot p \land r)) \equiv [(p \lor q) \land (p \lor \lnot p)] \lor (\lnot p \land r) \equiv (p \lor q) \lor (\lnot p \land r) \\ \equiv (p \lor q \lor \lnot p) \land (p \lor q \lor r) \equiv p \vee q \vee r$$
Here I used the law that $A \wedge \top \equiv A$ twice, removing the tautologous $(p \vee \lnot p)$ and $(p \vee q \vee \lnot p)$.
Let's turn to the right-hand side. By similar reductions as in the first step, you get $$(\lnot q \lor (q \land \lnot p) \lor (\lnot p \land r)) \equiv (\lnot q \lor \lnot p \lor \lnot p) \wedge (\lnot q \lor \lnot p \lor r)$$
By the law that $(A \lor B) \wedge (A \lor B \lor C) \equiv A \lor B$, this is equivalent to $$\lnot q \lor \lnot p$$
Thus, combining the results we get $(p \vee q \vee r) \wedge (\lnot q \lor \lnot p)$, as desired.