#jsDisabledContent { display:none; } My Account | Register | Help

# Logical equivalence

Article Id: WHEBN0000169324
Reproduction Date:

 Title: Logical equivalence Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia Language: English Subject: Collection: Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia Publication Date:

### Logical equivalence

In logic, statements p and q are logically equivalent if they have the same logical content. This is a semantic concept; two statements are equivalent if they have the same truth value in every model (Mendelson 1979:56). The logical equivalence of p and q is sometimes expressed as p \equiv q, Epq, or p \Leftrightarrow q. However, these symbols are also used for material equivalence; the proper interpretation depends on the context. Logical equivalence is different from material equivalence, although the two concepts are closely related.

## Contents

• Logical equivalences 1
• Example 2
• Relation to material equivalence 3
• References 5

## Logical equivalences

Equivalence Name
p∧T≡p
p∨F≡p
Identity laws
p∨TT
p∧FF
Domination laws
p∨p≡p
p∧p≡p
Idempotent laws
¬(¬p)≡p Double negation law
p∨q≡q∨p
p∧q≡q∧p
Commutative laws
(p∨q)∨r≡p∨(q∨r)
(p∧q)∧r≡p∧(q∧r)
Associative laws
p∨(q∧r)≡(p∨q)∧(p∨r)
p∧(q∨r)≡(p∧q)∨(p∧r)
Distributive laws
¬(p∧q)≡¬p∨¬q
¬(p∨q)≡¬p∧¬q
De Morgan's laws
p∨(p∧q)≡p
p∧(p∨q)≡p
Absorption laws
p∨¬p≡T
p∧¬p≡F
Negation laws

Logical equivalences involving conditional statements：

1. p→q≡¬p∨q
2. p→q≡¬q→¬p
3. p∨q≡¬p→q
4. p∧q≡¬(p→¬q)
5. ¬(p→q)≡p∧¬q
6. (p→q)∧(p→r)≡p→(q∧r)
7. (p→q)∨(p→r)≡p→(q∨r)
8. (p→r)∧(q→r)≡(p∨q)→r
9. (p→r)∨(q→r)≡(p∧q)→r

Logical equivalences involving biconditionals：

1. p↔q≡(p→q)∧(q→p)
2. p↔q≡¬p↔¬q
3. p↔q≡(p∧q)∨(¬p∧¬q)
4. ¬(p↔q)≡p↔¬q

## Example

The following statements are logically equivalent:

1. If Lisa is in France, then she is in Europe. (In symbols, f \rightarrow e.)
2. If Lisa is not in Europe, then she is not in France. (In symbols, \neg e \rightarrow \neg f.)

Syntactically, (1) and (2) are derivable from each other via the rules of contraposition and double negation. Semantically, (1) and (2) are true in exactly the same models (interpretations, valuations); namely, those in which either Lisa is in France is false or Lisa is in Europe is true.

(Note that in this example classical logic is assumed. Some non-classical logics do not deem (1) and (2) logically equivalent.)

## Relation to material equivalence

Logical equivalence is different from material equivalence. The material equivalence of p and q (often written pq) is itself another statement, call it r, in the same object language as p and q. r expresses the idea "p if and only if q". In particular, the truth value of pq can change from one model to another.

The claim that two formulas are logically equivalent is a statement in the metalanguage, expressing a relationship between two statements p and q. The claim that p and q are semantically equivalent does not depend on any particular model; it says that in every possible model, p will have the same truth value as q. The claim that p and q are syntactically equivalent does not depend on models at all; it states that there is a deduction of q from p and a deduction of p from q.

There is a close relationship between material equivalence and logical equivalence. Formulas p and q are syntactically equivalent if and only if pq is a theorem, while p and q are semantically equivalent if and only if pq is true in every model (that is, pq is logically valid).

## References

• Elliot Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, second edition, 1979.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.

Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.