Definition:Logical Equivalence
Definition
If two statements $p$ and $q$ are such that:
then $p$ and $q$ are said to be (logically) equivalent.
That is:
- $p \dashv \vdash q$
means:
- $p \vdash q$ and $q \vdash p$
Note that because the conclusion of an argument is a single statement, there can be only one statement on either side of the $\dashv \vdash$ sign.
In symbolic logic, the notion of logical equivalence occurs in the form of provable equivalence and semantic equivalence.
Provable Equivalence
Let $\mathscr P$ be a proof system for a formal language $\LL$.
Let $\phi, \psi$ be $\LL$-WFFs.
Then $\phi$ and $\psi$ are $\mathscr P$-provably equivalent if and only if:
- $\phi \vdash_{\mathscr P} \psi$ and $\psi \vdash_{\mathscr P} \phi$
that is, if and only if they are $\mathscr P$-provable consequences of one another.
The provable equivalence of $\phi$ and $\psi$ can be denoted by:
- $\phi \dashv \vdash_{\mathscr P} \psi$
Semantic Equivalence
Let $\mathscr M$ be a formal semantics for a formal language $\LL$.
Let $\phi, \psi$ be $\LL$-WFFs.
Then $\phi$ and $\psi$ are $\mathscr M$-semantically equivalent if and only if:
- $\phi \models_{\mathscr M} \psi$ and $\psi \models_{\mathscr M} \phi$
that is, if and only if they are $\mathscr M$-semantic consequences of one another.
Also known as
Two logically equivalent statements are also referred to as:
Also denoted as
Some sources denote $p \dashv \vdash q$ by $p \leftrightarrow q$.
Others use $p \equiv q$.
In modal logic, logical equivalence is expressed as:
- $\Box \paren {p \equiv q}$
On $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$, during the course of development of general proofs of logical equivalence, the notation $p \leadstoandfrom q$ is used as a matter of course.
The $\LaTeX$ code for \(p \leadstoandfrom q\) is p \leadstoandfrom q
.
The $\LaTeX$ code for \(\Box \paren {p \equiv q}\) is \Box \paren {p \equiv q}
.
Note that in Distinction between Logical Implication and Conditional, the distinction between $\implies$ and $\leadsto$ is explained.
In the same way, $\leadstoandfrom$ and $\iff$ are not the same -- it makes no sense to write:
- $A \iff B \iff C$
when what should be written is:
- $A \leadstoandfrom B \leadstoandfrom C$
Also see
- Results about logical equivalence can be found here.
Sources
- 1965: E.J. Lemmon: Beginning Logic ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $1$: The Propositional Calculus $1$: $5$ Further Proofs: Résumé of Rules: Theorem $29$
- 1965: E.J. Lemmon: Beginning Logic ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $2$: The Propositional Calculus $2$: $3$ Truth-Tables: $\text {(v)}$
- 1973: Irving M. Copi: Symbolic Logic (4th ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): $2$ Arguments Containing Compound Statements: $2.4$: Statement Forms
- 1980: D.J. O'Connor and Betty Powell: Elementary Logic ... (previous) ... (next): $\S \text{II}$: The Logic of Statements $(2): \ 6$: Using logical equivalences
- 1998: David Nelson: The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (2nd ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): equivalence: 2. (logical or strict)
- 1998: David Nelson: The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (2nd ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): logical equivalence
- 1999: András Hajnal and Peter Hamburger: Set Theory ... (previous) ... (next): $1$. Notation, Conventions
- 2000: James R. Munkres: Topology (2nd ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): $1$: Set Theory and Logic: $\S 1$: Fundamental Concepts
- 2008: David Nelson: The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (4th ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): equivalence: 2. (logical or strict)
- 2008: David Nelson: The Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics (4th ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): logical equivalence
- 2014: Christopher Clapham and James Nicholson: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics (5th ed.) ... (previous) ... (next): logically equivalent