Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For the special case of conjunctive queries in which all relations used are binary, this notion corresponds to the treewidth of the dependency graph of the variables in the query (i.e., the graph having the variables of the query as nodes and an undirected edge {,} between two variables if and only if there is an atomic formula (,) or (,) in ...
Sometimes precedence between conjunction and disjunction is unspecified requiring to provide it explicitly in given formula with parentheses. The order of precedence determines which connective is the "main connective" when interpreting a non-atomic formula.
In propositional logic, the commutativity of conjunction is a valid argument form and truth-functional tautology. It is considered to be a law of classical logic. It is the principle that the conjuncts of a logical conjunction may switch places with each other, while preserving the truth-value of the resulting proposition. [1]
It deals with propositions [1] (which can be true or false) [10] and relations between propositions, [11] including the construction of arguments based on them. [12] Compound propositions are formed by connecting propositions by logical connectives representing the truth functions of conjunction, disjunction, implication, biconditional, and ...
If is used as notation to designate the result of replacing every instance of conjunction with disjunction, and every instance of disjunction with conjunction (e.g. with , or vice-versa), in a given formula , and if ¯ is used as notation for replacing every sentence-letter in with its negation (e.g., with ), and if the symbol is used for ...
A logical formula is considered to be in DNF if it is a disjunction of one or more conjunctions of one or more literals. [2] [3] [4] A DNF formula is in full disjunctive normal form if each of its variables appears exactly once in every conjunction and each conjunction appears at most once (up to the order of variables).
In intuitionistic logic, it is not true that every formula is logically equivalent to a prenex formula. The negation connective is one obstacle, but not the only one. The implication operator is also treated differently in intuitionistic logic than classical logic; in intuitionistic logic, it is not definable using disjunction and negation.
In contrast, no renaming of (x 1 ∨ ¬x 2 ∨ ¬x 3) ∧ (¬x 1 ∨ x 2 ∨ x 3) ∧ ¬x 1 leads to a Horn formula. Checking the existence of such a replacement can be done in linear time; therefore, the satisfiability of such formulae is in P as it can be solved by first performing this replacement and then checking the satisfiability of the ...