
-----------------------------------
Macmee
Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:54 am

Abit of help simplifying this boolean statement?
-----------------------------------
Hi!

I'm attempting to simplify this boolean function by hand (for a discrete structures course):

(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; (~Q &#8744; ~R)

I know I can turn that into:

(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; ~Q) &#8744; (~P &#8743; ~R)

and then combine (P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) and (~P &#8743; ~Q) but the problem is I then get 6 different statements and if I keep combining things I just end up with a crazy amount of statements.

I was wondering if there's a smarter way to go about simplifying large boolean statements as such then just combining everything and hoping you combined things in such a way that things cancel out.

-----------------------------------
evildaddy911
Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:51 am

RE:Abit of help simplifying this boolean statement?
-----------------------------------
can you explain what you mean by ^, v and ~?

-----------------------------------
Macmee
Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:10 pm

RE:Abit of help simplifying this boolean statement?
-----------------------------------
My apologies:

~ = not / negation
^ = and / conjunction
&#8744; = or / disjunction

-----------------------------------
Insectoid
Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:18 pm

RE:Abit of help simplifying this boolean statement?
-----------------------------------
Well, first of all you've got (P^Q^R)v(~P^Q^R), which can be solved with common sense. The second part is a little trickier, and I don't have time to explain it right now.

-----------------------------------
evildaddy911
Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:46 pm

RE:Abit of help simplifying this boolean statement?
-----------------------------------
~X^~Y = X ~v Y; you can apply this twice right now

-----------------------------------
viperfan7
Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:51 pm

Re: Abit of help simplifying this boolean statement?
-----------------------------------
Necro post but no one posts in here as it is, so why not do something

Well using truth tables I got it down to ~P v (Q ^ R)

Table for 
(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; (~Q &#8744; ~R) 
[code]
 P | Q | R | OUT | (P ^ Q ^ R) | v | (~P ^ Q ^ R) | v | (~P | ^ | (~Q v ~R) )
---|---|---|-----|-------------|---|--------------|---|-----|---|------------  
 0 | 0 | 0 |  1  |      0      | 0 |       0      | 1 |  1  | 1 |      1      
 0 | 0 | 1 |  1  |      0      | 0 |       0      | 1 |  1  | 1 |      1      
 0 | 1 | 0 |  1  |      0      | 0 |       0      | 1 |  1  | 1 |      1      
 0 | 1 | 1 |  1  |      0      | 1 |       1      | 1 |  1  | 0 |      0      
 1 | 0 | 0 |  0  |      0      | 0 |       0      | 0 |  0  | 0 |      1      
 1 | 0 | 1 |  0  |      0      | 0 |       0      | 0 |  0  | 0 |      1      
 1 | 1 | 0 |  0  |      0      | 0 |       0      | 0 |  0  | 0 |      1      
 1 | 1 | 1 |  1  |      1      | 1 |       0      | 0 |  0  | 0 |      0      
[/code]

Table for
~P &#8744; (Q &#8743; R)
[code]
 P | Q | R | OUT | ~P | v | (Q ^ R) 
---|---|---|-----|----|---|---------
 0 | 0 | 0 |  1  |  1 | 1 |    0
 0 | 0 | 1 |  1  |  1 | 1 |    0  
 0 | 1 | 0 |  1  |  1 | 1 |    0
 0 | 1 | 1 |  1  |  1 | 1 |    1
 1 | 0 | 0 |  0  |  0 | 0 |    0
 1 | 0 | 1 |  0  |  0 | 0 |    0
 1 | 1 | 0 |  0  |  0 | 0 |    0
 1 | 1 | 1 |  1  |  0 | 1 |    1
[/code]

ALWAYS set up a truth table, they make life SO much easier

and if you expand and simplify

(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; (~Q &#8744; ~R))  ->
(~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; (~Q &#8744; ~R)) ->
(~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; ~Q) &#8744; (~P &#8743; ~R) ->
(~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; ~(P &#8743; Q) &#8744; ~(P &#8743; R) ->
(~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; ~(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) ->
((P &#8744; (~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R)) &#8743; (Q &#8744; (~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R)) &#8743;(R &#8744; (~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R)))  &#8744; ~(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) ->
(1 &#8743; (P &#8744; Q) &#8743; (P &#8744; R) &#8743; (Q &#8744; ~P) &#8743; Q &#8743; (Q &#8744; R) &#8743; (R &#8744; ~P) &#8743; (R &#8744; Q) &#8743; R) &#8744; ~(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) ->
(Q &#8743; R) &#8744; ~(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) ->
(Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; ~Q &#8743; ~R) ->
(~P &#8744; (Q &#8743; R)) &#8743; (~Q &#8744; (Q &#8743; R)) &#8743; (~R &#8744; (Q &#8743; R)) ->
(~P &#8744; Q) &#8743; (~P &#8744; R) &#8743; (~Q &#8744; Q) &#8743; (~Q &#8744; R) &#8743; (~R &#8744; Q) &#8743; (~R &#8744; R) ->
(~P &#8744; Q) &#8743; (~P &#8744; R) &#8743; 1 &#8743; (~Q &#8744; R) &#8743; (~R &#8744; Q) &#8743; 1 ->
(~P &#8744; Q) &#8743; (~P &#8744; R) &#8743; (~Q &#8744; R) &#8743; (~R &#8744; Q) ->
(~P &#8744; Q) &#8743; (~P &#8744; R) &#8743; 1 ->
(~P &#8744; Q) &#8743; (~P &#8744; R) ->
~P &#8744; (Q &#8743; R)

-----------------------------------
Insectoid
Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:24 pm

RE:Abit of help simplifying this boolean statement?
-----------------------------------
That's so much work! There's only three parts to this problem, each of which simplifies easily with a little thought. 

(P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) &#8744; (~P &#8743; Q &#8743; R) simplifies to Q^R, because, well, just look at it. 

So now we have Q^R &#8744; (~P &#8743; (~Q &#8744; ~R)

~Q v ~R is the inverse of Q^R (there's some identity there) so we can just negate Q^R and get the same thing.

Q^R v (~P^~(Q^R))

If Q^R evaluates to false, then ~(Q^R) is true. So we don't really need that bit. Which leaves us with (Q^R)v~P.

-----------------------------------
viperfan7
Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:03 am

RE:Abit of help simplifying this boolean statement?
-----------------------------------
Well, its meant to show to process to get the answer, so that people can learn from it.

That and I was bored.


Making that post nicely formatted took longer then solving that thing.
