3
$\begingroup$

I have greatly simplified down a piece of boolean logic developed from a truth table, but I cannot figure out how to simplify it more. Two of the same variable exist in the different places, which leads me to believe that it can be simplified more.

$ (D \land (A \lor (\lnot C \land B))) \lor (C \land (A \lor \lnot B)) $

How can this be simplified?

  • 0
    Thanks on the k-map suggestion, which I would have used if my basic level class didn't require me to work from the most complicated version of the logic based on a truth table and simplify from there...2012-09-22

1 Answers 1

2

What you want to use here is distributivity, $p \wedge (q \vee r) \leftrightarrow (p \wedge q) \vee (p \wedge r)$ Use this on both the left and right to deduce that your formula is equivalent to $(D\wedge A) \vee (D\wedge \neg C \wedge B) \vee (C\wedge A) \vee (C\wedge \neg B)$ This is called the "disjunctive normal form" of a formula, and it's often one of the two clearest ways to express one-the other is "conjunctive normal form," which you can pass to via a number of applications of de Morgan's laws and distributivity from here, getting $(D\vee C) \wedge (A \vee \neg B\vee \neg C)\wedge (B\vee C\vee A)$ In this case, the conjunctive form has less terms, but which form is simpler eventually comes down to a subjective question.