Main Page: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{more footnotes|date=June 2013}}
{{Transformation rules}}
[[Image:Double-Pendulum.svg|upright|thumb|A double pendulum consists of two [[pendulum]]s attached end to end.]]
In [[physics]] and [[mathematics]], in the area of [[dynamical systems]], a '''double pendulum''' is a [[pendulum]] with another pendulum attached to its end, and is a simple [[physical system]] that exhibits rich [[dynamical systems|dynamic behavior]] with a strong sensitivity to initial conditions.<ref>Levien RB and Tan SM. Double Pendulum: An experiment in chaos.''American Journal of Physics'' 1993; 61 (11): 1038</ref> The motion of a double pendulum is governed by a set of coupled [[ordinary differential equation]]s. For certain [[energy|energies]] its motion is [[chaos theory|chaotic]].


==Analysis and interpretation==
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]].
Several variants of the double pendulum may be considered; the two limbs may be of equal or unequal lengths and masses, they may be [[simple pendulum]]s or [[compound pendulum]]s (also called complex pendulums) and the motion may be in three dimensions or restricted to the vertical plane. In the following analysis, the limbs are taken to be identical compound pendulums of length <math>\ell</math> and mass <math>m</math>, and the motion is restricted to two dimensions.


[[Image:Double-compound-pendulum-dimensioned.svg|right|thumb|Double compound pendulum]]
The rules can be expressed in English as:
In a compound pendulum, the mass is distributed along its length. If the mass is evenly distributed, then the center of mass of each limb is at its midpoint, and the limb has a [[moment of inertia]] of <math>\textstyle I=\frac{1}{12} m \ell^2</math> about that point.<!--  The moment of inertia of a rod rotating around an axis attached to one of its ends equals <math>\textstyle I=\frac{1}{3} m \ell^2</math>. -->  
<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>


It is convenient to use the angles between each limb and the vertical as the [[generalized coordinates]] defining the [[configuration space|configuration]] of the system. These angles are denoted θ<sub>1</sub> and θ<sub>2</sub>. The position of the center of mass of each rod may be written in terms of these two coordinates. If the origin of the [[Cartesian coordinate system]] is taken to be at the point of suspension of the first pendulum, then the center of mass of this pendulum is at:
The rules can be expressed in [[formal language]] with two propositions ''P'' and ''Q'' as:
:<math>
x_1 = \frac{\ell}{2} \sin \theta_1,
</math>
:<math>
y_1 = -\frac{\ell}{2} \cos \theta_1
</math>
and the center of mass of the second pendulum is at
:<math>
x_2 = \ell \left (  \sin \theta_1 + \frac{1}{2} \sin \theta_2 \right ),
</math>
:<math>
y_2 = -\ell \left (  \cos \theta_1 + \frac{1}{2} \cos \theta_2 \right ).
</math>
This is enough information to write out the Lagrangian.


===Lagrangian===
:<math>\neg(P\land Q)\iff(\neg P)\lor(\neg Q)</math>
The [[Lagrangian]] is
:<math>\neg(P\lor Q)\iff(\neg P)\land(\neg Q)</math>
:<math>
\begin{align}L & = \mathrm{Kinetic~Energy} - \mathrm{Potential~Energy} \\
              & = \frac{1}{2} m \left ( v_1^2 + v_2^2 \right ) + \frac{1}{2} I \left ( {\dot \theta_1}^2 + {\dot \theta_2}^2 \right ) - m g \left ( y_1 + y_2 \right ) \\
              & = \frac{1}{2} m \left ( {\dot x_1}^2 + {\dot y_1}^2 + {\dot x_2}^2 + {\dot y_2}^2 \right ) + \frac{1}{2} I \left ( {\dot \theta_1}^2 + {\dot \theta_2}^2 \right ) - m g \left ( y_1 + y_2 \right ) \end{align}
</math>
The first term is the ''linear'' [[kinetic energy]] of the [[center of mass]] of the bodies and the second term is the ''rotational'' kinetic energy around the center of mass of each rod. The last term is the [[potential energy]] of the bodies in a uniform gravitational field. The [[Newton's notation|dot-notation]] indicates the [[time derivative]] of the variable in question.


Substituting the coordinates above and rearranging the equation gives
where:
:<math>
*¬ is the negation operator (NOT)
L = \frac{1}{6} m \ell^2 \left [ {\dot \theta_2}^2 + 4 {\dot \theta_1}^2 + 3 {\dot \theta_1} {\dot \theta_2} \cos (\theta_1-\theta_2) \right ] + \frac{1}{2} m g \ell \left ( 3 \cos \theta_1 + \cos \theta_2 \right ).
*<math>\land</math> is the conjunction operator (AND)
</math>
*<math>\lor</math> is the disjunction operator (OR)
*⇔  is a [[metalogic]]al symbol meaning "can be replaced in a [[formal proof|logical proof]] with"


[[Image:double-compound-pendulum.gif|right|frame|Motion of the double compound pendulum (from numerical integration of the equations of motion)]]
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]].
[[Image:DPLE.jpg|right|thumb|Long exposure of double pendulum exhibiting chaotic motion (tracked with an [[LED]])]]
 
There is only one conserved quantity (the energy), and no conserved [[generalized momentum|momenta]].  The two momenta may be written as
== 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 [[Rule of inference|rule form]]:
''negation of conjunction''
:<math>\frac{\neg (P \and Q)}{\therefore \neg P \or \neg Q}</math>


:<math>
p_{\theta_1} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial {\dot \theta_1}} = \frac{1}{6} m \ell^2 \left [ 8 {\dot \theta_1}  + 3 {\dot \theta_2} \cos (\theta_1-\theta_2) \right ]
</math>
and
and
:<math>
''negation of disjunction''
p_{\theta_2} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial {\dot \theta_2}} = \frac{1}{6} m \ell^2 \left [ 2 {\dot \theta_2} + 3 {\dot \theta_1} \cos (\theta_1-\theta_2)  \right ].
:<math>\frac{\neg (P \or Q)}{\therefore \neg P \and \neg Q}</math>
</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>


These expressions may be inverted to get
This emphasizes the need to invert both the inputs and the output, as well as change the operator, when doing a substitution.


:<math>
=== Set theory and Boolean algebra ===
{\dot \theta_1} = \frac{6}{m\ell^2} \frac{ 2 p_{\theta_1} - 3 \cos(\theta_1-\theta_2) p_{\theta_2}}{16 - 9 \cos^2(\theta_1-\theta_2)}
 
</math>
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:
and
*<math>\overline{A \cup B}\equiv\overline{A} \cap \overline{B}</math>
:<math>
*<math>\overline{A \cap B}\equiv\overline{A} \cup \overline{B}</math>
{\dot \theta_2} = \frac{6}{m\ell^2} \frac{ 8 p_{\theta_2} - 3 \cos(\theta_1-\theta_2) p_{\theta_1}}{16 - 9 \cos^2(\theta_1-\theta_2)}.
 
</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''}.


The remaining equations of motion are written as
Then


:<math>
:<math> \forall x \, P(x) \equiv P(a) \land P(b) \land P(c) </math>
{\dot p_{\theta_1}} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \theta_1} = -\frac{1}{2} m \ell^2 \left [ {\dot \theta_1} {\dot \theta_2} \sin (\theta_1-\theta_2) + 3 \frac{g}{\ell} \sin \theta_1 \right ]
</math>


and
and


:<math>
:<math> \exists x \, P(x) \equiv P(a) \lor P(b) \lor P(c).\, </math>
{\dot p_{\theta_2}} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial \theta_2}
= -\frac{1}{2} m \ell^2 \left [ -{\dot \theta_1} {\dot \theta_2} \sin (\theta_1-\theta_2) \frac{g}{\ell} \sin \theta_2 \right ].
</math>


These last four equations are explicit formulae for the time evolution of the system given its current state. It is not possible to go further and integrate these equations analytically{{Citation needed|date=June 2011}}, to get formulae for θ<sub>1</sub> and θ<sub>2</sub> as functions of time. It is however possible to perform this integration numerically using the [[Runge–Kutta methods|Runge Kutta]] method or similar techniques.
But, using De Morgan's laws,


==Chaotic motion==
:<math> P(a) \land P(b) \land P(c) \equiv \neg (\neg P(a) \lor \neg P(b) \lor \neg P(c)) </math>
[[Image:Double_pendulum_flips_graph.png|thumb|Graph of the time for the pendulum to flip over as a function of initial conditions]]


The double pendulum undergoes [[chaotic motion]], and shows a sensitive dependence on [[initial conditions]].  The image to the right shows the amount of elapsed time before the pendulum "flips over," as a function of initial conditions. Here, the initial value of θ<sub>1</sub> ranges along the ''x''-direction, from &minus;3 to 3.  The initial value θ<sub>2</sub> ranges along the ''y''-direction, from &minus;3 to 3.  The colour of each pixel indicates whether either pendulum flips within <math>10\sqrt{\ell/g  }</math> (green), within <math>100\sqrt{\ell/g  }</math> (red), <math>1000\sqrt{\ell/g  }</math> (purple) or <math>10000\sqrt{\ell/g  }</math> (blue).  Initial conditions that don't lead to a flip within <math>10000\sqrt{\ell/g  }</math> are plotted white.
and


The boundary of the central white region is defined in part by energy conservation with the following curve:
:<math> P(a) \lor P(b) \lor P(c) \equiv \neg (\neg P(a) \land \neg P(b) \land \neg P(c)), </math>


:<math>
verifying the quantifier dualities in the model.
3 \cos \theta_1 + \cos \theta_2  = 2. \,
</math>


Within the region defined by this curve, that is if
Then, the quantifier dualities can be extended further to [[modal logic]], relating the box ("necessarily") and diamond ("possibly") operators:


:<math>
:<math> \Box p \equiv \neg \Diamond \neg p, </math>
3 \cos \theta_1 + \cos \theta_2  > 2, \,
:<math> \Diamond p \equiv \neg \Box \neg p.\, </math>
</math>


then it is energetically impossible for either pendulum to flip.  Outside this region, the pendulum can flip, but it is a complex question to determine when it will flip.  Similar behavior is observed for a double pendulum composed of two point masses rather than two rods with distributed mass.<ref>Alex Small, ''[https://12d82b32-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/physicistatlarge/Computational%20Physics%20Sample%20Project-Alex%20Small-v1.pdf Sample Final Project: One Signature of Chaos in the Double Pendulum]'', (2013). A report produced as an example for students.  Includes a derivation of the equations of motion, and a comparison between the double pendulum with 2 point masses and the double pendulum with 2 rods.</ref>
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]].
 
The lack of a natural excitation frequency has led to the use of double pendulum systems in seismic resistance designs in buildings, where the building itself is the primary inverted pendulum, and a secondary mass is connected to complete the double pendulum.


==See also==
==See also==
* [[Double inverted pendulum]]
* [[Isomorphism]] (NOT operator as isomorphism between [[wikt:positive logic|positive logic]] and [[wikt:negative logic|negative logic]])
* [[Pendulum (mathematics)]]
* [[List of Boolean algebra topics]]
* Mid-20th century physics textbooks use the term "Double Pendulum" to mean a single bob suspended from a string which is in turn suspended from a V-shaped string.  This type of [[pendulum]], which produces [[Lissajous curves]], is now referred to as a [[Blackburn pendulum]]. An artistic application of this can be seen here:  http://paulwainwrightphotography.com/pendulum_gallery.shtml .


==Notes==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
==References==
*{{cite book
| last = Meirovitch
| first = Leonard
| year = 1986
| title = Elements of Vibration Analysis
| edition = 2nd edition
| publisher = McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math
| isbn = 0-07-041342-8
}}
* Eric W. Weisstein, ''[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DoublePendulum.html Double pendulum]'' (2005), ScienceWorld ''(contains details of the complicated equations involved)'' and "[http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/DoublePendulum/ Double Pendulum]" by Rob Morris, [[Wolfram Demonstrations Project]], 2007 (animations of those equations).
* Peter Lynch, ''[http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/doublependulum.html Double Pendulum]'', (2001). ''(Java applet simulation.)''
* Northwestern University, ''[http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/vpl/mechanics/pendulum.html Double Pendulum]'', ''(Java applet simulation.)''
* Theoretical High-Energy Astrophysics Group at UBC, ''[http://tabitha.phas.ubc.ca/wiki/index.php/Double_pendulum Double pendulum]'', (2005).


==External links==
==External links==
*Animations and explanations of a [http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~wheat/dpend_html/ double pendulum] and a [http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~wheat/sdpend/ physical double pendulum (two square plates)] by Mike Wheatland (Univ. Sydney)
* {{springer|title=Duality principle|id=p/d034130}}
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzlccwt5SKc&NR=1 Video] of a double square pendulum with three (almost) identical starting conditions.
* {{MathWorld | urlname=deMorgansLaws | title=de Morgan's Laws}}
*Double pendulum physics simulation from [http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html www.myphysicslab.com]
* {{PlanetMath | urlname=DeMorgansLaws | title=de Morgan's laws | id=2308}}
*Simulation, equations and explanation of [http://www.chris-j.co.uk/rott.php Rott's pendulum]
*Comparison videos of a double pendulum with the same initial starting conditions on [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2ySvbL3-yA YouTube]
* [http://freddie.witherden.org/tools/doublependulum/ Double Pendulum Simulator] - An open source simulator written in [[C++]] using the [[Qt (toolkit)|Qt toolkit]].
* [http://www.imaginary2008.de/cinderella/english/G2.html Online Java simulator] of the [[Imaginary_(exhibition)|Imaginary exhibition]].
* Vadas Gintautas, [[Alfred Hubler|Alfred Hübler]] (2007). [http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v75/i5/e057201 Experimental evidence for mixed reality states in an interreality system] Phys. Rev. E 75, 057201 Presents data on an experimental, mixed reality system in which a real and virtual pendulum complexly interact.
 
{{Chaos theory}}


[[Category:Chaotic maps]]
{{Set theory}}
[[Category:Pendulums]]
[[Category:Boolean algebra]]
[[Category:Duality theories]]
[[Category:Rules of inference]]
[[Category:Articles containing proofs]]
[[Category:Theorems in propositional logic]]

Revision as of 20:40, 9 August 2014

Template:Transformation rules

In propositional logic and boolean algebra, De Morgan's laws[1][2][3] are a pair of transformation rules that are both valid rules of inference. The rules allow the expression of conjunctions and disjunctions purely in terms of each other via negation.

The rules can be expressed in English as:

The negation of a conjunction is the disjunction of the negations.
The negation of a disjunction is the conjunction of the negations.

or informally as:

"not (A and B)" is the same as "(not A) or (not B)"


and also,

"not (A or B)" is the same as "(not A) and (not B)"

The rules can be expressed in formal language with two propositions P and Q as:

where:

Applications of the rules include simplification of logical expressions in computer programs and digital circuit designs. De Morgan's laws are an example of a more general concept of mathematical duality.

Formal notation

The negation of conjunction rule may be written in sequent notation:

The negation of disjunction rule may be written as:

In rule form: negation of conjunction

and negation of disjunction

and expressed as a truth-functional tautology or theorem of propositional logic:

where , and 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:

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, it is often stated as "Union and intersection interchange under complementation",[4] which can be formally expressed as:

where:

The generalized form is:

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".[5]

Engineering

In electrical and computer engineering, De Morgan's law is commonly written as:

where:

History

The law is named after Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871)[6] 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[7] (in the 14th century, William of Ockham wrote down the words that would result by reading the laws out),[8] 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.[9] 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 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:

In that it has been established that neither A nor B is true, then it must follow that both A is not true and B is not true, which may be written directly as:

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:

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, 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:

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 is done by first proving that , and then by proving that

Let . Then . Because , then either or . If , then , so then . Otherwise, if , then , so . Because this is true for any arbitrary , then , and so .

To prove the reverse direction, assume that such that . Then . It follows that and . Then and . But then , in contradiction to the hypothesis that . Therefore, , and .

Because and , then , concluding the proof of De Morgan's Law.

The other De Morgan's Law, that , 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 forms: 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 gates, 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 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 defined by

This idea can be generalised to quantifiers, so for example the universal quantifier and existential quantifier are duals:

To relate these quantifier dualities to the De Morgan laws, set up a model with some small number of elements in its domain D, such as

D = {a, b, c}.

Then

and

But, using De Morgan's laws,

and

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:

In its application to the 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

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

External links

  • Other Sports Official Kull from Drumheller, has hobbies such as telescopes, property developers in singapore and crocheting. Identified some interesting places having spent 4 months at Saloum Delta.

    my web-site http://himerka.com/


  • I had like 17 domains hosted on single account, and never had any special troubles. If you are not happy with the service you will get your money back with in 45 days, that's guaranteed. But the Search Engine utility inside the Hostgator account furnished an instant score for my launched website. Fantastico is unable to install WordPress in a directory which already have any file i.e to install WordPress using Fantastico the destination directory must be empty and it should not have any previous installation files. When you share great information, others will take note. Once your hosting is purchased, you will need to setup your domain name to point to your hosting. Money Back: All accounts of Hostgator come with a 45 day money back guarantee. If you have any queries relating to where by and how to use Hostgator Discount Coupon, you can make contact with us at our site. If you are starting up a website or don't have too much website traffic coming your way, a shared plan is more than enough. Condition you want to take advantage of the worldwide web you prerequisite a HostGator web page, -1 of the most trusted and unfailing web suppliers on the world wide web today. Since, single server is shared by 700 to 800 websites, you cannot expect much speed.



    Hostgator tutorials on how to install Wordpress need not be complicated, especially when you will be dealing with a web hosting service that is friendly for novice webmasters and a blogging platform that is as intuitive as riding a bike. After that you can get Hostgator to host your domain and use the wordpress to do the blogging. Once you start site flipping, trust me you will not be able to stop. I cut my webmaster teeth on Control Panel many years ago, but since had left for other hosting companies with more commercial (cough, cough) interfaces. If you don't like it, you can chalk it up to experience and go on. First, find a good starter template design. When I signed up, I did a search for current "HostGator codes" on the web, which enabled me to receive a one-word entry for a discount. Your posts, comments, and pictures will all be imported into your new WordPress blog.
  • Template:PlanetMath

Template:Set theory

  1. Copi and Cohen
  2. Hurley
  3. Moore and Parker
  4. Boolean Algebra By R. L. Goodstein. ISBN 0-486-45894-6
  5. 2000 Solved Problems in Digital Electronics By S. P. Bali
  6. DeMorgan’s Theorems at mtsu.edu
  7. Bocheński's History of Formal Logic
  8. William of Ockham, Summa Logicae, part II, sections 32 & 33.
  9. Augustus De Morgan (1806 -1871) by Robert H. Orr