my question is basically, have I done the simplification correct so far? Is the answer correct? What is that simplification step I'm missing? Could anyone possibly outline the simplification steps for me in this question as I'm slightly confused?
Simplifying Boolean Expression (De Morgan)
2 Answers
Your very first step is incorrect; you failed to apply DeMorgan's Rule(s): $$\begin{align} \overline{A +B} &= \overline{A}\cdot \overline B\\ \overline{A\cdot B} &= \overline A +\overline B \end{align}$$
The missing step you're likely referring to is one of two distributivity laws:
$$\begin{align} A\cdot(B + C) = (B+C)\cdot A &= (A \cdot B) +(A\cdot C)\;\quad(1)\\ A+(B\cdot C) = (B\cdot C)+ A & = (A+B)\cdot(A+C)\quad(2)\end{align}$$
Applying this knowledge to your problem, $$\overline{\overline{(A+B)} +B} = \overline{\overline{A+B}}\cdot \overline{B} \tag{By Demorgan's}$$
$$= (A+B)\cdot \overline{B}\tag{using double negation}$$ $$A\cdot \overline{B} + \underbrace{B\cdot\overline{B}}_{\large =\, 0}\tag{distributive law (1)} $$
So that we are left with $A\cdot \overline B$
Alternatively, I'll use $\lnot (x)$ to mean $\overline{x}$: (NOT x), and use parentheses to indicate the scope of each negation>
$$\lnot(\lnot(A +B) +B) = \lnot\lnot (A + B)\cdot( \lnot B) \tag{DeMorgan's}$$
$=(A + B)\cdot (\lnot B))\tag{Double Negation}$
$$= A\cdot( \lnot B)+\underbrace{(B\cdot(\lnot B))}_{= 0}\tag{distributive law}$$
$$= A \cdot (\lnot B)\tag{$(\text{from}\;A\cdot(\lnot B))+ 0$}$$
-
0I'm not too familar with boolean expressions & simplification since we only had our first lesson on the topic today, and we didn't really learn half the stuff our teacher set for homework, so thanks for this. Just one thing I'm confused about. I can see that the first DeMorgan rule you stated was applied, however did you consider "A" to be the (A+B) part, and B to be the + B? I mean basically this screenshot should explain what I mean: http://prntscr.com/dwwpjj – 2017-01-17
-
0Yes, that's correct. We started with the ***negation*** of the entire expression given by $(\text{NOT } (A+B) +B)$, so essentially we start with **NOT** $\Big (\text{NOT }(A+B) + B\Big)$. Working from the outside negation over the entire expression in parentheses, we get (Via DeMorgans) **NotNot**$(A+B) \cdot (\text{Not } B)$ from which the rest follows. – 2017-01-17
-
0Thanks a lot for your help, I'm definitely crystal clear on how the answer was obtained now. – 2017-01-17
-
0Great! Glad to hear. :-) – 2017-01-17
@amWhy already pointed out the mistake in your first step, and correctly indicated that on line 3 you should have:
$(A \lor B) \land \neg B$
What I want to add to this is that this last line is such a common pattern that there is an equivalence rule for it:
Reduction
$P \land (\neg P \lor Q) \Leftrightarrow P \land Q$
(this makes sense, since for $\neg P \lor Q$ to be true in addition to $P$ being true means that $Q$ has to be true. In other words, the term $P$ makes the term $\neg P \lor Q$ reduce to just $Q$)
And of course, for any equivalence, we always have a dual equivalence by swapping the $\land$'s and $\lor$'s, so we also have:
$P \lor (\neg P \land Q) \Leftrightarrow P \lor Q$
Anyway, given this Reduction principle, you last step is really just one step:
$(A \lor B) \land \neg B$ (Reduction!)
$A \land \neg B$
So yes, remember this Reduction rule: it's real handy to have when doing Boolean Algebra!
-
1If the OP is unfamiliar with, or having trouble with using DeMorgan's, I wouldn't suggest they memorize a rule of reduction, without knowing *why* it works in the first place. Students first need to understand DeMorgan's, Double Negation, commutativity, associativity, and the distribution properties, along with identities like $p+ \lnot p = T$, while $p\land \lnot P = 0 (\bot)$, before meeting with shortcut rules that incorporate a number of steps into one step. – 2017-01-17
-
0However, if a student who has a precursory understanding of logic, happens upon this question at some point, indeed, reduction can be a time-saver, and perhaps they're even ready to grasp duals...So, I'm not saying your answer is "bad" in any way. – 2017-01-17
-
0@amWhy You make a good point! I did try to give an intuitive explanation of Reduction though that I think avoids having to use those other identities. – 2017-01-17