Can we use induction to prove gate(like NAND) is universal. If so how?
2026-04-05 23:06:28.1775430388
Using induction to prove universality of gate
1.2k 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 INDUCTION
- Show that the sequence is bounded below 3
- Fake induction, can't find flaw, every graph with zero edges is connected
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
- Prove $\sum^{n}_{i=1}\binom{n}{i}i=n2^{n-1}$ using binomial and induction
- Induction proof of Fibonacci numbers
- The Martian Monetary System
- How to format a proof by induction
- $x+\frac{1}{x}$ is an integer
- Help with induction proof please! For an integer $n, 3$ divides $n^3-n$
- Proving $\sum_{k=1}^n kk!=(n+1)!−1$
Related Questions in BOOLEAN-ALGEBRA
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- Put $f(A,B,C) = A+B'C$ in $Σ$ $\pi$ notation
- Definition of Boolean subalgebra
- Steps to simplify this boolean expression
- When a lattice is a lattice of open sets of some topological space?
- Boolean Algebra with decomposition property
- Simplify $(P \wedge Q \wedge R)\vee(\neg P\wedge Q\wedge\neg R)\vee(\neg P\wedge\neg Q\wedge R)\vee(\neg P \wedge\neg Q\wedge\neg R)$
- $B$ countable boolean algebra then St(B) separable.
- Who is the truth teller (logic puzzle)
- How to prove this Boolean expression?
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
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?
This is what I meant by "induction on circuits." So define the "size" of a circuit as the number of gates in it. So if you have two "ANDs" and a "NOT" together, regardless of how it's put together, has size 3.
Now consider the proposition $P(n)$, which says "every (traditional) circuit of size at most $n$ has an equivalent circuit made only of NAND gates." This is what you prove by induction.
The BASE case ($n=1$) is single-gate circuits: your AND and OR and NOT and what-have-you. It's enough to do just OR and NOT (for example), since ($A$ AND $B$) is equivalent to NOT((NOT $A$) OR (NOT $B$))).
The STEP case (assume $P(n)$; prove $P(n+1)$) goes like this, and is completely standard across all arguments. Take any circuit of size $n+1$. This is formed by taking a circuit of size $n$ and adding one more gate. We can replace the original circuit with just NANDs (since $P(n)$ is true) and the new circuit with just NANDs (since $P(1)$ is true; this is our base case) and the result is a circuit which is equivalent to the original, but has only NANDs.
This is the inductive argument. So you can see the only thing that has anything to do with NAND is the base case; if you can do NOT and OR, you can do everything.
If this is still unclear let me know in a comment.