2
$\begingroup$

I'm currently struggling a bit on this question. I tried induction on the number of parameters.

Induction.

Start $n=0$:

Let $f$ be a boolean function with $0$ parameters.

2 Cases: $f()=0$ or $f()=1$

For case 1 we have a formula like $a \land \lnot a$

Case 2 formula $a \lor \lnot a$

Now the induction step is where i am struggling:

$f(x_1,x_2,...x_n,x_{n+1})=1$ or

$f(x_1,x_2,...x_n,x_{n+1})=0$

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Just use the conjunctive normal form, or the disjunctive normal form no induction needed, really. Both obey your requirements, I think.

But if you want induction, try: given $f: \{0,1\}^{n+1} \to \{0,1\}$ define the "sections" $g_0: \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}$ by $g_0(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = f(x_1,\ldots,x_n, 0)$ and $g_1$ similarly with $x_{n+1} = 1$.

By induction represent $g_0(x_1,\ldots, x_n) = \phi_0(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ using some formula with $\land, \lor$ and $\lnot$ in the terms $x_i$. Ditto with $g_1$ and some $\phi_1$. Then $$f(x_1, \ldots,x_n, x_{n+1}) = (\phi_0(x_0,\ldots,x_n) \land \lnot x_{n+1}) \lor (\phi_1(x_0,\ldots,x_n) \land x_{n+1})$$

which is also of the required form.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Well, if one happens to want a formal proof, I don't think we can get around using induction somewhere. But it can probably he hidden away with some appropriate handwaving in an ordinary prose argument. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 11:32
  • $\begingroup$ @HenningMakholm one way is to use one conjunction for every preimage of $1$. I don't see any induction there ,you can just define it from the truth table. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 11:34
  • $\begingroup$ yes i know dnf works, but i wanted to use induction. Thanks $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 11:35
  • $\begingroup$ @HennoBrandsma: I think (again, to be completely formal) that one needs induction to prove an arbitrary element of the domain has a conjunction corresponding to it. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 11:38
  • $\begingroup$ Why can i define $g_0$ as equal to a function $f$ who has one parameter more ? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 11:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.