Truth table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A truth table is a mathematical table used in logic—specifically in connection with Boolean algebra, boolean functions, and propositional calculus—to compute the functional values of logical expressions on each of their functional arguments, that is, on each combination of values taken by their logical variables (Enderton, 2001). In particular, truth tables can be used to tell whether a propositional expression is true for all legitimate input values, that is, logically valid.

Practically, a truth table is composed of one column for each input variable (for example, A and B), and one final column for all of the possible results of the logical operation that the table is meant to represent (for example, A XOR B). Each row of the truth table therefore contains one possible configuration of the input variables (for instance, A=true B=false), and the result of the operation for those values. See the examples below for further clarification. Ludwig Wittgenstein is often credited with their invention in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.^[1]

Unary operations

Logical identity

Logical identity is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true if its operand is true and a value of false if its operand is false.

The truth table for the logical identity operator is as follows:

**Logical Identity**
p	$p$
$Operand$	$Value$
T	T
F	F

Logical negation

Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true if its operand is false and a value of false if its operand is true.

The truth table for NOT p (also written as ¬p, Np, Fpq, or ~p) is as follows:

**Logical Negation**
p	$\negp$
T	F
F	T

Binary operations

Truth table for all binary logical operators

Here is a truth table giving definitions of all 16 of the possible truth functions of two binary variables (P and Q are thus boolean variables; for details about the operators see below):

P	Q	F⁰	NOR¹	Xq²	¬p³	↛⁴	¬q⁵	XOR⁶	NAND⁷	AND⁸	XNOR⁹	q¹⁰	if/then¹¹	p¹²	then/if¹³	OR¹⁴	T¹⁵
T	T	F	F	F	F	F	F	F	F	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T
T	F	F	F	F	F	T	T	T	T	F	F	F	F	T	T	T	T
F	T	F	F	T	T	F	F	T	T	F	F	T	T	F	F	T	T
F	F	F	T	F	T	F	T	F	T	F	T	F	T	F	T	F	T
Com		✓	✓					✓	✓	✓	✓					✓	✓
L id				F				F		T	T	TF	T			F
R id						F		F		T	T			TF	T	F

where T = true and F = false. The Com row indicates whether an operator, op, is commutative - P op Q = Q op P. The L id row shows the operator's left identity if it has one - a value I such that I op Q = Q. The R id row shows the operator's right identity if it has one - a value I such that P op I = P.

Key:

				Operation name
0	Opq	F	false	Contradiction
1	Xpq	NOR	↓	Logical NOR
2	Mpq	Xq		Converse nonimplication
3	Fpq	Np	¬p	Negation
4	Lpq	Xp	↛	Material nonimplication
5	Gpq	Nq	¬q	Negation
6	Jpq	XOR	⊕	Exclusive disjunction
7	Dpq	NAND	↑	Logical NAND
8	Kpq	AND	∧	Logical conjunction
9	Epq	XNOR	If and only if	Logical biconditional
10	Hpq	q		Projection function
11	Cpq	XNp	if/then	Material implication
12	Ipq	p		Projection function
13	Bpq	XNq	then/if	Converse implication
14	Apq	OR	∨	Logical disjunction
15	Vpq	T	true	Tautology

Logical operators can also be visualized using Venn diagrams.

Logical conjunction

Logical conjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if both of its operands are true.

The truth table for p AND q (also written as p ∧ q, Kpq, p & q, or p $\cdot$ q) is as follows:

**Logical Conjunction**
p	q	p ∧ q
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	F
F	F	F

In ordinary language terms, if both p and q are true, then the conjunction p ∧ q is true. For all other assignments of logical values to p and to q the conjunction p ∧ q is false.

It can also be said that if p, then p ∧ q is q, otherwise p ∧ q is p.

Logical disjunction

Logical disjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if at least one of its operands is true.

The truth table for p OR q (also written as p ∨ q, Apq, p || q, or p + q) is as follows:

**Logical Disjunction**
p	q	p ∨ q
T	T	T
T	F	T
F	T	T
F	F	F

Stated in English, if p, then p ∨ q is p, otherwise p ∨ q is q.

Logical implication

Logical implication or the material conditional are both associated with an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of false just in the singular case the first operand is true and the second operand is false.

The truth table associated with the material conditional if p then q (symbolized as p → q) and the logical implication p implies q (symbolized as p ⇒ q, or Cpq) is as follows:

**Logical Implication**
p	q	p → q
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	T
F	F	T

It may also be useful to note that p → q is equivalent to ¬p ∨ q.

Logical equality

Logical equality (also known as biconditional) is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if both operands are false or both operands are true.

The truth table for p XNOR q (also written as p ↔ q, Epq, p = q, or p ≡ q) is as follows:

**Logical Equality**
p	q	p ≡ q
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	F
F	F	T

So p EQ q is true if p and q have the same truth value (both true or both false), and false if they have different truth values.

Exclusive disjunction

Exclusive disjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if one but not both of its operands is true.

The truth table for p XOR q (also written as p ⊕ q, Jpq, or p ≠ q) is as follows:

**Exclusive Disjunction**
p	q	p ⊕ q
T	T	F
T	F	T
F	T	T
F	F	F

For two propositions, XOR can also be written as (p = 1 ∧ q = 0) ∨ (p = 0 ∧ q = 1).

Logical NAND

The logical NAND is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of false if both of its operands are true. In other words, it produces a value of true if at least one of its operands is false.

The truth table for p NAND q (also written as p ↑ q, Dpq, or p | q) is as follows:

**Logical NAND**
p	q	p ↑ q
T	T	F
T	F	T
F	T	T
F	F	T

It is frequently useful to express a logical operation as a compound operation, that is, as an operation that is built up or composed from other operations. Many such compositions are possible, depending on the operations that are taken as basic or "primitive" and the operations that are taken as composite or "derivative".

In the case of logical NAND, it is clearly expressible as a compound of NOT and AND.

The negation of a conjunction: ¬(p ∧ q), and the disjunction of negations: (¬p) ∨ (¬q) can be tabulated as follows:

p	q	p ∧ q	¬(p ∧ q)	¬p	¬q	(¬p) ∨ (¬q)
T	T	T	F	F	F	F
T	F	F	T	F	T	T
F	T	F	T	T	F	T
F	F	F	T	T	T	T

Logical NOR

The logical NOR is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if both of its operands are false. In other words, it produces a value of false if at least one of its operands is true. ↓ is also known as the Peirce arrow after its inventor, Charles Sanders Peirce, and is a Sole sufficient operator.

The truth table for p NOR q (also written as p ↓ q, Xpq, or p ⊥ q) is as follows:

**Logical NOR**
p	q	p ↓ q
T	T	F
T	F	F
F	T	F
F	F	T

The negation of a disjunction ¬(p ∨ q), and the conjunction of negations (¬p) ∧ (¬q) can be tabulated as follows:

p	q	p ∨ q	¬(p ∨ q)	¬p	¬q	(¬p) ∧ (¬q)
T	T	T	F	F	F	F
T	F	T	F	F	T	F
F	T	T	F	T	F	F
F	F	F	T	T	T	T

Inspection of the tabular derivations for NAND and NOR, under each assignment of logical values to the functional arguments p and q, produces the identical patterns of functional values for ¬(p ∧ q) as for (¬p) ∨ (¬q), and for ¬(p ∨ q) as for (¬p) ∧ (¬q). Thus the first and second expressions in each pair are logically equivalent, and may be substituted for each other in all contexts that pertain solely to their logical values.

This equivalence is one of De Morgan's laws.

Applications

Truth tables can be used to prove many other logical equivalences. For example, consider the following truth table:

**Logical Equivalence : (p → q) = (¬p ∨ q)**
p	q	¬p	¬p ∨ q	p → q
T	T	F	T	T
T	F	F	F	F
F	T	T	T	T
F	F	T	T	T

This demonstrates the fact that p → q is logically equivalent to ¬p ∨ q.

Truth table for most commonly used logical operators

Here is a truth table giving definitions of the most commonly used 6 of the 16 possible truth functions of 2 binary variables (P,Q are thus boolean variables):

$P$	$Q$	$P\land Q$	$P\lor Q$	$P\underline {\lor }Q$	$P\underline {\land }Q$	$P\Rightarrow Q$	$P\Leftarrow Q$	$P\iff Q$
T	T	T	T	F	T	T	T	T
T	F	F	T	T	F	F	T	F
F	T	F	T	T	F	T	F	F
F	F	F	F	F	T	T	T	T

Key:

T = true, F = false

$\land$ = AND (logical conjunction)

$\lor$ = OR (logical disjunction)

$\underline {\lor }$ = XOR (exclusive or)

$\underline {\land }$ = XNOR (exclusive nor)

$\rightarrow$ = conditional "if-then"

$\leftarrow$ = conditional "(then)-if"

$\iff$ biconditional or "if-and-only-if" is logically equivalent to $\underline {\land }$ : XNOR (exclusive nor).

Logical operators can also be visualized using Venn diagrams.

Condensed truth tables for binary operators

For binary operators, a condensed form of truth table is also used, where the row headings and the column headings specify the operands and the table cells specify the result. For example Boolean logic uses this condensed truth table notation:

∧	F	T
F	F	F
T	F	T

∨	F	T
F	F	T
T	T	T

This notation is useful especially if the operations are commutative, although one can additionally specify that the rows are the first operand and the columns are the second operand. This condensed notation is particularly useful in discussing multi-valued extensions of logic, as it significantly cuts down on combinatoric explosion of the number of rows otherwise needed. It also provides for quickly recognizable characteristic "shape" of the distribution of the values in the table which can assist the reader in grasping the rules more quickly.

Truth tables in digital logic

Truth tables are also used to specify the functionality of hardware look-up tables (LUTs) in digital logic circuitry. For an n-input LUT, the truth table will have 2^n values (or rows in the above tabular format), completely specifying a boolean function for the LUT. By representing each boolean value as a bit in a binary number, truth table values can be efficiently encoded as integer values in electronic design automation (EDA) software. For example, a 32-bit integer can encode the truth table for a LUT with up to 5 inputs.

When using an integer representation of a truth table, the output value of the LUT can be obtained by calculating a bit index k based on the input values of the LUT, in which case the LUT's output value is the kth bit of the integer. For example, to evaluate the output value of a LUT given an array of n boolean input values, the bit index of the truth table's output value can be computed as follows: if the ith input is true, let Vi = 1, else let Vi = 0. Then the kth bit of the binary representation of the truth table is the LUT's output value, where k = V0*2^0 + V1*2^1 + V2*2^2 + ... + Vn*2^n.

Truth tables are a simple and straightforward way to encode boolean functions, however given the exponential growth in size as the number of inputs increase, they are not suitable for functions with a large number of inputs. Other representations which are more memory efficient are text equations and binary decision diagrams.

Applications of truth tables in digital electronics

In digital electronics and computer science (fields of applied logic engineering and mathematics), truth tables can be used to reduce basic boolean operations to simple correlations of inputs to outputs, without the use of logic gates or code. For example, a binary addition can be represented with the truth table:

A B | C R
1 1 | 1 0
1 0 | 0 1
0 1 | 0 1
0 0 | 0 0

where

A = First Operand
B = Second Operand
C = Carry
R = Result

This truth table is read left to right:

Value pair (A,B) equals value pair (C,R).
Or for this example, A plus B equal result R, with the Carry C.

Note that this table does not describe the logic operations necessary to implement this operation, rather it simply specifies the function of inputs to output values.

With respect to the result, this example may be arithmetically viewed as modulo 2 binary addition, and as logically equivalent to the exclusive-or (exclusive disjunction) binary logic operation.

In this case it can be used for only very simple inputs and outputs, such as 1s and 0s. However, if the number of types of values one can have on the inputs increases, the size of the truth table will increase.

For instance, in an addition operation, one needs two operands, A and B. Each can have one of two values, zero or one. The number of combinations of these two values is 2×2, or four. So the result is four possible outputs of C and R. If one were to use base 3, the size would increase to 3×3, or nine possible outputs.

The first "addition" example above is called a half-adder. A full-adder is when the carry from the previous operation is provided as input to the next adder. Thus, a truth table of eight rows would be needed to describe a full adder's logic:

A B C* | C R
0 0 0  | 0 0
0 1 0  | 0 1
1 0 0  | 0 1
1 1 0  | 1 0
0 0 1  | 0 1
0 1 1  | 1 0
1 0 1  | 1 0
1 1 1  | 1 1

Same as previous, but..
C* = Carry from previous adder

History

Irving Anellis has done the research to show that C.S. Peirce appears to be the earliest logician (in 1893) to devise a truth table matrix. From the summary of his paper:

In 1997, John Shosky discovered, on the verso of a page of the typed transcript of Bertrand Russell’s 1912 lecture on “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism” truth table matrices. The matrix for negation is Russell’s, alongside of which is the matrix for material implication in the hand of Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is shown that an unpublished manuscript identified as composed by Peirce in 1893 includes a truth table matrix that is equivalent to the matrix for material implication discovered by John Shosky. An unpublished manuscript by Peirce identified as having been composed in 1883-84 in connection with the composition of Peirce’s “On the Algebra of Logic: A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation” that appeared in the American Journal of Mathematics in 1885 includes an example of an indirect truth table for the conditional.

References

↑ Georg Henrik von Wright (1955). "Ludwig Wittgenstein, A Biographical Sketch". The Philosophical Review 64 (4): 527–545 (p. 532, note 9). JSTOR 2182631.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Truth tables.

Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001), "Truth table", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer, ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4
Truth Tables, Tautologies, and Logical Equivalence
PEIRCE’S TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND THE ORIGIN OF TRUTH TABLES by Irving H. Anellis

v t e Logical connectives

Tautology $\top$

NAND $\uparrow$ Converse implication $\leftarrow$ Implication $\rightarrow$ OR $\lor$

Negation $\neg$ XOR $\oplus$ Biconditional $\leftrightarrow$ Statement

NOR $\downarrow$ Nonimplication $\nrightarrow$ Converse nonimplication $\nleftarrow$ AND $\land$

Contradiction $\bot$

Logic

Overview

Academic areas	Argumentation theory Axiology Critical thinking Computability theory Formal semantics History of logic Informal logic Logic in computer science Mathematical logic Mathematics Metalogic Metamathematics Model theory Philosophical logic Philosophy Philosophy of logic Philosophy of mathematics Proof theory Set theory

Foundations	Abduction Analytic truth Antinomy A priori Deduction Definition Description Induction Inference Logical form Logical consequence Logical truth Name Necessity Meaning Paradox Possible world Presupposition Probability Reason Reasoning Reference Semantics Statement Strict implication Substitution Syntax Truth Truth value Validity

Philosophical logic

Critical thinking Informal logic	Analysis Ambiguity Argument Belief Bias Credibility Evidence Explanation Explanatory power Fact Fallacy Inquiry Opinion Parsimony Premise Propaganda Prudence Reasoning Relevance Rhetoric Rigor Vagueness

Theories of deduction	Constructivism Dialetheism Fictionalism Finitism Formalism Intuitionism Logical atomism Logicism Nominalism Platonic realism Pragmatism Realism

Metalogic Metamathematics

Cantor's theorem Church's theorem Church's thesis Consistency Effective method Foundations of mathematics Gödel's completeness theorem Gödel's incompleteness theorems Soundness Completeness Decidability Interpretation Löwenheim–Skolem theorem Metatheorem Satisfiability Independence Type–token distinction Use–mention distinction

Mathematical logic

General	Formal language Formation rule Formal system Deductive system Formal proof Formal semantics Well-formed formula Set Element Class Classical logic Axiom Natural deduction Rule of inference Relation Theorem Logical consequence Axiomatic system Type theory Symbol Syntax Theory

Traditional logic	Proposition Inference Argument Validity Cogency Syllogism Square of opposition Venn diagram

Propositional calculus Boolean logic	Boolean functions Propositional calculus Propositional formula Logical connectives Truth tables

Predicate logic	First-order Quantifiers Predicate Second-order Monadic predicate calculus

Set theory	Set Empty set Enumeration Extensionality Finite set Function Subset Power set Countable set Recursive set Domain Range Ordered pair Uncountable set

Model theory	Model Interpretation Non-standard model Finite model theory Truth value Validity

Proof theory	Formal proof Deductive system Formal system Theorem Logical consequence Rule of inference Syntax

Computability theory	Recursion Recursive set Recursively enumerable set Decision problem Church–Turing thesis Computable function Primitive recursive function

Non-classical logic

Modal logic	Alethic Axiologic Deontic Doxastic Epistemic Temporal

Intuitionism	Intuitionistic logic Constructive analysis Heyting arithmetic Intuitionistic type theory Constructive set theory

Fuzzy logic	Degree of truth Fuzzy rule Fuzzy set Fuzzy finite element Fuzzy set operations

Substructural logic	Structural rule Relevance logic Linear logic

Paraconsistent logic	Dialetheism

Description logic	Ontology Ontology language

Many-valued logic	Three-valued logic Four-valued logic Łukasiewicz logic

Logicians

Lists

Topics	Index of logic articles Mathematical logic Boolean algebra Set theory

Other	Logicians Rules of inference Paradoxes Fallacies Logic symbols

Common logical symbols

& ∨ ¬ ~ → ⊃ ≡ \| ∀ ∃ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ∴ ∵

Portal
Category
Outline
WikiProject
Talk
changes

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike; additional terms may apply for the media files.