Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
De Morgan's laws represented with Venn diagrams.In each case, the resultant set is the set of all points in any shade of blue. In propositional logic and Boolean algebra, De Morgan's laws, [1] [2] [3] also known as De Morgan's theorem, [4] are a pair of transformation rules that are both valid rules of inference.
Another variant is the not-all-equal 3-satisfiability problem (also called NAE3SAT). Given a conjunctive normal form with three literals per clause, the problem is to determine if an assignment to the variables exists such that in no clause all three literals have the same truth value.
To be precise, what is sought are often not necessarily actual values, but, more in general, expressions. A solution of the inequation is an assignment of expressions to the unknowns that satisfies the inequation(s); in other words, expressions such that, when they are substituted for the unknowns, make the inequations true propositions.
The same is true for not less than, . The notation a ≠ b means that a is not equal to b; this inequation sometimes is considered a form of strict inequality. [4] It does not say that one is greater than the other; it does not even require a and b to be member of an ordered set.
In mathematics, a Boolean function is a function whose arguments and result assume values from a two-element set (usually {true, false}, {0,1} or {-1,1}). [1] [2] Alternative names are switching function, used especially in older computer science literature, [3] [4] and truth function (or logical function), used in logic.
[1] [2] The term was coined by Peter Landin, possibly as a pun on the offside law in association football. An off-side rule language is contrasted with a free-form language in which indentation has no syntactic meaning, and indentation is strictly a matter of style. An off-side rule language is also described as having significant indentation.
If exponentiation is indicated by stacked symbols using superscript notation, the usual rule is to work from the top down: [2] [7] a b c = a (b c) which typically is not equal to (a b) c. This convention is useful because there is a property of exponentiation that (a b) c = a bc, so it's unnecessary to use serial exponentiation for this.
In mathematics, a proof by infinite descent, also known as Fermat's method of descent, is a particular kind of proof by contradiction [1] used to show that a statement cannot possibly hold for any number, by showing that if the statement were to hold for a number, then the same would be true for a smaller number, leading to an infinite descent and ultimately a contradiction. [2]