|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Transformation rules}}
| | There is a proven all natural technique which will help you grow taller by 2-3 inches in under 6 weeks. I went through my life as a short male and wanting to be taller. It is built on the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare game engine, so the look and feel of the two games are very similar, though this one has slightly improved graphics. In the film, he wakes up the next day as an adult, played by the actor Tom Hanks, with a whole new set of problems. Intense exercise will stimulate production of growth hormones that are important in helping you to gain height. <br><br>To accommodate the multi-passenger crew of the Voskhod, potentially disastrous steps were made. You won't get a plus of 5 inches over night, and you need to exclude the option of going to the gym just for one month. First of all genetic discoveries may actually help scientists to find treatments and cures for diseases that affect bones, such as osteoarthritis and cancer. Milk, yogurt, cheese and dairy products are some foods in which you can find good amount of calcium. Protein: This is a very essential nutrient to aid growth of the body. <br><br>You do not need to buy expensive machines or enroll to expensive workout programs to gain height; you can do it on your own in a fun and inexpensive way. Fair officials refer to him now as their 'Mickey Mouse,' noting that, just as the world's favorite mouse changed some over the years, he still retained his original identity, and was always immediately recognizable. The spine is made up of bones called vertebrae and the vertebrae are separated by tissues called cartilage. You will also want to avoid wearing clothes that sharply contrast, as this will show the actual length of your leg and can make you look shorter. Buy wear vertical stripes clothes or pinstriped suit to make you look taller due to its slimming effect. <br><br>Some possible parts of the life cycle that you may want to discuss will be:. It has been speculated that the reason why the Dutch are so tall in general is because of their nutritional habits. Plyometrics may be very effective to your training routine providing that the exercises are done properly, with safety and injury prevention as your primary concerns. So being tall conveys virility, health, and energy, potentially making taller men more attractive to the opposite sex. If you want to get taller, then you have to consider performing workout routines. <br><br>I have been thinking about this for quite some time now. This great cardiovascular activity has a low risk of injury and works out your entire body at once. And of course, you can reach higher than anybody else not to mention to have a bird. " To warm up your muscles before hand, you don't have to go overboard but it is a very good idea to get the blood pumping to them so that they are more "primed" for the stretching. Simply snap kick straight ahead, roughly two feet off the ground.<br><br>In case you adored this short article along with you wish to get more information relating to [http://www.estampas.info/ stretches to grow taller] i implore you to check out the page. |
| | |
| In [[propositional calculus|propositional logic]] and [[boolean algebra]], '''De Morgan's laws'''<ref>Copi and Cohen</ref><ref>Hurley</ref><ref>Moore and Parker</ref> are a pair of transformation rules that are both [[validity|valid]] [[rule of inference|rules of inference]]. The rules allow the expression of [[Logical conjunction|conjunctions]] and [[Logical disjunction|disjunctions]] purely in terms of each other via [[logical negation|negation]].
| |
| | |
| The rules can be expressed in English as:
| |
| <blockquote>The negation of a conjunction is the disjunction of the negations.<br>
| |
| The negation of a disjunction is the conjunction of the negations.</blockquote>
| |
| or informally as:
| |
| <blockquote>"'''''not (A and B)'''''" is the same as "'''''(not A) or (not B)'''''"<br>
| |
| <br>
| |
| and also,<br>
| |
| <br>
| |
| "'''''not (A or B)'''''" is the same as "'''''(not A) and (not B)'''''"</blockquote>
| |
| | |
| The rules can be expressed in [[formal language]] with two propositions ''P'' and ''Q'' as:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\neg(P\land Q)\iff(\neg P)\lor(\neg Q)</math>
| |
| :<math>\neg(P\lor Q)\iff(\neg P)\land(\neg Q)</math>
| |
| | |
| where:
| |
| *¬ is the negation operator (NOT)
| |
| *<math>\land</math> is the conjunction operator (AND)
| |
| *<math>\lor</math> is the disjunction operator (OR)
| |
| *⇔ is a [[metalogic]]al symbol meaning "can be replaced in a [[formal proof|logical proof]] with"
| |
| | |
| Applications of the rules include simplification of logical [[Expression (computer science)|expressions]] in [[computer program]]s and digital circuit designs. De Morgan's laws are an example of a more general concept of [[duality (mathematics)|mathematical duality]].
| |
| | |
| == Formal notation ==
| |
| | |
| The ''negation of conjunction'' rule may be written in [[sequent]] notation:
| |
| :<math>\neg(P \and Q) \vdash (\neg P \or \neg Q)</math>
| |
| | |
| The ''negation of disjunction'' rule may be written as:
| |
| :<math>\neg(P \or Q) \vdash (\neg P \and \neg Q)</math>
| |
| | |
| In [[inference rule|rule form]]: | |
| ''negation of conjunction''
| |
| :<math>\frac{\neg (P \and Q)}{\therefore \neg P \or \neg Q}</math>
| |
| | |
| and
| |
| ''negation of disjunction''
| |
| :<math>\frac{\neg (P \or Q)}{\therefore \neg P \and \neg Q}</math>
| |
| | |
| and expressed as a truth-functional [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]] or [[theorem]] of propositional logic:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\neg (P \and Q) \to (\neg P \or \neg Q)</math>
| |
| :<math>\neg (P \or Q) \to (\neg P \and \neg Q)</math>
| |
| | |
| where <math>P</math>, and <math>Q</math> are propositions expressed in some formal system.
| |
| | |
| ===Substitution form===
| |
| | |
| De Morgan's laws are normally shown in the compact form above, with negation of the output on the left and negation of the inputs on the right. A clearer form for substitution can be stated as:
| |
| | |
| :<math>(P \and Q) \equiv \neg (\neg P \or \neg Q)</math>
| |
| :<math>(P \or Q) \equiv \neg (\neg P \and \neg Q)</math>
| |
| | |
| This emphasizes the need to invert both the inputs and the output, as well as change the operator, when doing a substitution.
| |
| | |
| === Set theory and Boolean algebra ===
| |
| | |
| In set theory and [[Boolean algebra (logic)|Boolean algebra]], it is often stated as "Union and intersection interchange under complementation",<ref>''Boolean Algebra'' By R. L. Goodstein. ISBN 0-486-45894-6</ref> which can be formally expressed as:
| |
| *<math>\overline{A \cup B}\equiv\overline{A} \cap \overline{B}</math>
| |
| *<math>\overline{A \cap B}\equiv\overline{A} \cup \overline{B}</math>
| |
| | |
| where:
| |
| *{{overline|''A''}} is the negation of A, the [[overline]] being written above the terms to be negated
| |
| *∩ is the [[Intersection (set theory)|intersection]] operator (AND)
| |
| *∪ is the [[Union (set theory)|union]] operator (OR)
| |
| | |
| The generalized form is:
| |
| : <math>\overline{\bigcap_{i \in I} A_{i}}\equiv\bigcup_{i \in I} \overline{A_{i}}</math>
| |
| : <math>\overline{\bigcup_{i \in I} A_{i}}\equiv\bigcap_{i \in I} \overline{A_{i}}</math>
| |
| | |
| where ''I'' is some, possibly uncountable, indexing set.
| |
| | |
| In set notation, De Morgan's law can be remembered using the [[mnemonic]] "break the line, change the sign".<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=NdAjEDP5mDsC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=break+the+line+change+the+sign&source=web&ots=BtUl4oQOja&sig=H1Wz9e6Uv_bNeSbTvN6lr3s47PQ#PPA81,M1 2000 Solved Problems in Digital Electronics] By S. P. Bali</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Engineering ===
| |
| | |
| In [[electrical and computer engineering]], De Morgan's law is commonly written as:
| |
| : <math>\overline{A \cdot B} \equiv \overline {A} + \overline {B}</math>
| |
| : <math>\overline{A + B} \equiv \overline {A} \cdot \overline {B}</math>
| |
| | |
| where:
| |
| * <math> \cdot </math> is a logical AND
| |
| * <math>+</math> is a logical OR
| |
| * the {{overline|overbar}} is the logical NOT of what is underneath the overbar.
| |
| | |
| ==History==
| |
| The law is named after [[Augustus De Morgan]] (1806–1871)<ref>''[http://www.mtsu.edu/~phys2020/Lectures/L19-L25/L3/DeMorgan/body_demorgan.html DeMorgan’s Theorems]'' at mtsu.edu</ref> who introduced a formal version of the laws to classical [[propositional logic]]. De Morgan's formulation was influenced by algebraization of logic undertaken by [[George Boole]], which later cemented De Morgan's claim to the find. Although a similar observation was made by [[Aristotle]] and was known to Greek and Medieval logicians<ref>Bocheński's ''History of Formal Logic''</ref> (in the 14th century, [[William of Ockham]] wrote down the words that would result by reading the laws out),<ref>William of Ockham, Summa Logicae, part II, sections 32 & 33.</ref> De Morgan is given credit for stating the laws formally and incorporating them into the language of logic. De Morgan's Laws can be proved easily, and may even seem trivial.<ref>[http://www.engr.iupui.edu/~orr/webpages/cpt120/mathbios/ademo.htm Augustus De Morgan (1806 -1871)] by Robert H. Orr</ref> Nonetheless, these laws are helpful in making valid inferences in proofs and deductive arguments.
| |
| | |
| ==Informal proof==
| |
| De Morgan's theorem may be applied to the negation of a [[disjunction]] or the negation of a [[Logical conjunction|conjunction]] in all or part of a formula.
| |
| | |
| ===Negation of a disjunction===
| |
| In the case of its application to a disjunction, consider the following claim: "it is false that either of A or B is true", which is written as:
| |
| :<math>\neg(A\lor B)</math>
| |
| In that it has been established that ''neither'' A nor B is true, then it must follow that both A is not true [[logical AND|and]] B is not true, which may be written directly as:
| |
| :<math>(\neg A)\wedge(\neg B)</math>
| |
| If either A or B ''were'' true, then the disjunction of A and B would be true, making its negation false. Presented in English, this follows the logic that "Since two things are both false, it is also false that either of them is true."
| |
| | |
| Working in the opposite direction, the second expression asserts that A is false and B is false (or equivalently that "not A" and "not B" are true). Knowing this, a disjunction of A and B must be false also. The negation of said disjunction must thus be true, and the result is identical to the first claim.
| |
| | |
| ===Negation of a conjunction===
| |
| The application of De Morgan's theorem to a conjunction is very similar to its application to a disjunction both in form and rationale. Consider the following claim: "it is false that A and B are both true", which is written as:
| |
| :<math>\neg(A\land B)</math>
| |
| In order for this claim to be true, either or both of A or B must be false, for if they both were true, then the conjunction of A and B would be true, making its negation false. Thus, [[inclusive or|one (at least) or more]] of A and B must be false (or equivalently, one or more of "not A" and "not B" must be true). This may be written directly as:
| |
| :<math>(\neg A)\lor(\neg B)</math>
| |
| Presented in English, this follows the logic that "Since it is false that two things are both true, at least one of them must be false."
| |
| | |
| Working in the opposite direction again, the second expression asserts that at least one of "not A" and "not B" must be true, or equivalently that at least one of A and B must be false. Since at least one of them must be false, then their conjunction would likewise be false. Negating said conjunction thus results in a true expression, and this expression is identical to the first claim.
| |
| | |
| ==Formal proof==
| |
| The proof that <math>(A\cap B)^c = A^c \cup B^c</math> is done by first proving that <math>(A\cap B)^c \subseteq A^c \cup B^c</math>, and then by proving that <math>A^c \cup B^c \subseteq (A\cap B)^c</math>
| |
| | |
| Let <math>x \in (A \cap B)^c</math>. Then <math>x \not\in A \cap B</math>. Because <math>A \cap B = \{y | y \in A \text{ and } y \in B\}</math>, then either <math>x \not\in A</math> or <math>x \not\in B</math>. If <math>x \not\in A</math>, then <math>x \in A^c</math>, so then <math>x \in A^c \cup B^c</math>. Otherwise, if <math>x \not\in B</math>, then <math>x \in B^c</math>, so <math>x \in A^c\cup B^c</math>. Because this is true for any arbitrary <math>x \in (A\cap B)^c</math>, then <math>\forall x \in (A\cap B)^c, x \in A^c \cup B^c</math>, and so <math>(A\cap B)^c \subseteq A^c \cup B^c</math>.
| |
| | |
| To prove the reverse direction, assume that <math>\exists x \in A^c \cup B^c</math> such that <math>x \not\in (A\cap B)^c</math>. Then <math>x \in A\cap B</math>. It follows that <math>x \in A</math> and <math>x \in B</math>. Then <math>x \not\in A^c</math> and <math>x \not\in B^c</math>. But then <math>x \not\in A^c \cup B^c</math>, in contradiction to the hypothesis that <math>x \in A^c \cup B^c</math>. Therefore, <math>\forall x \in A^c \cup B^c, x \in (A\cap B)^c</math>, and <math>A^c \cup B^c \subseteq (A\cap B)^c</math>.
| |
| | |
| Because <math>A^c \cup B^c \subseteq (A\cap B)^c</math> and <math>(A \cap B)^c \subseteq A^c \cup B^c</math>, then <math>(A\cap B)^c = A^c \cup B^c</math>, concluding the proof of De Morgan's Law.
| |
| | |
| The other De Morgan's Law, that <math>(A\cup B)^c = A^c \cap B^c</math>, is proven similarly.
| |
| | |
| ==Extensions==
| |
| | |
| In extensions of classical propositional logic, the duality still holds (that is, to any logical operator we can always find its dual), since in the presence of the identities governing negation, one may always introduce an operator that is the De Morgan dual of another. This leads to an important property of logics based on classical logic, namely the existence of [[negation normal form]]s: any formula is equivalent to another formula where negations only occur applied to the non-logical atoms of the formula. The existence of negation normal forms drives many applications, for example in [[digital circuit]] design, where it is used to manipulate the types of [[logic gate]]s, and in formal logic, where it is a prerequisite for finding the [[conjunctive normal form]] and [[disjunctive normal form]] of a formula. Computer programmers use them to simplify or properly negate complicated [[Conditional (programming)|logical conditions]]. They are also often useful in computations in elementary [[probability theory]].
| |
| | |
| Let us define the dual of any propositional operator P(''p'', ''q'', ...) depending on elementary propositions ''p'', ''q'', ... to be the operator <math>\mbox{P}^d</math> defined by
| |
| | |
| :<math>\mbox{P}^d(p, q, ...) = \neg P(\neg p, \neg q, \dots).</math>
| |
| | |
| This idea can be generalised to quantifiers, so for example the [[universal quantifier]] and [[existential quantifier]] are duals:
| |
| | |
| :<math> \forall x \, P(x) \equiv \neg \exists x \, \neg P(x), </math>
| |
| | |
| :<math> \exists x \, P(x) \equiv \neg \forall x \, \neg P(x). </math>
| |
| | |
| To relate these quantifier dualities to the De Morgan laws, set up a [[model theory|model]] with some small number of elements in its domain ''D'', such as
| |
| | |
| :''D'' = {''a'', ''b'', ''c''}.
| |
| | |
| Then
| |
| | |
| :<math> \forall x \, P(x) \equiv P(a) \land P(b) \land P(c) </math> | |
| | |
| and
| |
| | |
| :<math> \exists x \, P(x) \equiv P(a) \lor P(b) \lor P(c).\, </math>
| |
| | |
| But, using De Morgan's laws,
| |
| | |
| :<math> P(a) \land P(b) \land P(c) \equiv \neg (\neg P(a) \lor \neg P(b) \lor \neg P(c)) </math>
| |
| | |
| and
| |
| | |
| :<math> P(a) \lor P(b) \lor P(c) \equiv \neg (\neg P(a) \land \neg P(b) \land \neg P(c)), </math>
| |
| | |
| verifying the quantifier dualities in the model.
| |
| | |
| Then, the quantifier dualities can be extended further to [[modal logic]], relating the box ("necessarily") and diamond ("possibly") operators:
| |
| | |
| :<math> \Box p \equiv \neg \Diamond \neg p, </math>
| |
| :<math> \Diamond p \equiv \neg \Box \neg p.\, </math>
| |
| | |
| In its application to the [[Subjunctive possibility|alethic modalities]] of possibility and necessity, [[Aristotle]] observed this case, and in the case of [[normal modal logic]], the relationship of these modal operators to the quantification can be understood by setting up models using [[Kripke semantics]].
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| * [[Isomorphism]] (NOT operator as isomorphism between [[wikt:positive logic|positive logic]] and [[wikt:negative logic|negative logic]])
| |
| * [[List of Boolean algebra topics]]
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| {{reflist}}
| |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| * {{springer|title=Duality principle|id=p/d034130}}
| |
| * {{MathWorld | urlname=deMorgansLaws | title=de Morgan's Laws}}
| |
| * {{PlanetMath | urlname=DeMorgansLaws | title=de Morgan's laws | id=2308}}
| |
| | |
| {{Set theory}}
| |
| [[Category:Boolean algebra]]
| |
| [[Category:Duality theories]]
| |
| [[Category:Rules of inference]]
| |
| [[Category:Articles containing proofs]]
| |
| [[Category:Theorems in propositional logic]]
| |
There is a proven all natural technique which will help you grow taller by 2-3 inches in under 6 weeks. I went through my life as a short male and wanting to be taller. It is built on the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare game engine, so the look and feel of the two games are very similar, though this one has slightly improved graphics. In the film, he wakes up the next day as an adult, played by the actor Tom Hanks, with a whole new set of problems. Intense exercise will stimulate production of growth hormones that are important in helping you to gain height.
To accommodate the multi-passenger crew of the Voskhod, potentially disastrous steps were made. You won't get a plus of 5 inches over night, and you need to exclude the option of going to the gym just for one month. First of all genetic discoveries may actually help scientists to find treatments and cures for diseases that affect bones, such as osteoarthritis and cancer. Milk, yogurt, cheese and dairy products are some foods in which you can find good amount of calcium. Protein: This is a very essential nutrient to aid growth of the body.
You do not need to buy expensive machines or enroll to expensive workout programs to gain height; you can do it on your own in a fun and inexpensive way. Fair officials refer to him now as their 'Mickey Mouse,' noting that, just as the world's favorite mouse changed some over the years, he still retained his original identity, and was always immediately recognizable. The spine is made up of bones called vertebrae and the vertebrae are separated by tissues called cartilage. You will also want to avoid wearing clothes that sharply contrast, as this will show the actual length of your leg and can make you look shorter. Buy wear vertical stripes clothes or pinstriped suit to make you look taller due to its slimming effect.
Some possible parts of the life cycle that you may want to discuss will be:. It has been speculated that the reason why the Dutch are so tall in general is because of their nutritional habits. Plyometrics may be very effective to your training routine providing that the exercises are done properly, with safety and injury prevention as your primary concerns. So being tall conveys virility, health, and energy, potentially making taller men more attractive to the opposite sex. If you want to get taller, then you have to consider performing workout routines.
I have been thinking about this for quite some time now. This great cardiovascular activity has a low risk of injury and works out your entire body at once. And of course, you can reach higher than anybody else not to mention to have a bird. " To warm up your muscles before hand, you don't have to go overboard but it is a very good idea to get the blood pumping to them so that they are more "primed" for the stretching. Simply snap kick straight ahead, roughly two feet off the ground.
In case you adored this short article along with you wish to get more information relating to stretches to grow taller i implore you to check out the page.