All About Circuits Forum Boolean algebra duality principle
 Register Blogs FAQ Members List Today's Posts Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Notices Welcome to the All About Circuits forums.Our forum is a place where thousands of students, hobbyists and professionals from around the world share knowledge and ideas. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

 Homework Help Stuck on a textbook question or coursework? Cramming for a test and need help understanding something? Post your questions and attempts here and let others help.

#1
02-03-2011, 11:05 AM
 xEnOnn Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 25
Boolean algebra duality principle

My textbook says that the duality principle of the boolean algebra allows me to obtain a same expression in a different form. So for example, X.Y+Z' = (X'+Y').Z

But when I try to plot the truth table, the values of X.Y+Z' is opposite of (X'+Y').Z, which is if one of it is true, the other is false and vice versa. Since this is the case, they are not the same right? Then why are they still considered equal?
#2
02-03-2011, 03:14 PM
 Heavydoody Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Northern Ohio Posts: 140

I am just now doing this at school, so I am no expert. Having said that, my understanding of duality is that for every axiom there is a "dual" axiom created by exchanging and's for or's, or's for and's, 1's for 0's, and 0's for 1's. These dual axioms do not equal each other. So, for example:

x+1=1 has the dual x0=0
(xy)'=x'+y' has the dual (x+y)'=x'y'

However, x+1≠x0 and (xy)'≠x'y'
#3
02-03-2011, 03:18 PM
 narasimhan Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 72

Quote:
 These dual axioms do not equal each other.
Absolutely correct.

Actually the dual of X.Y+Z' is (X+Y),Z'
Moreover (X'+Y').Z is the complement of X.Y+Z'

that is ((X'+Y').Z)'=X.Y+Z'
Now draw truth table and verify. And do reply if you get it right and understood the concept.
#4
02-04-2011, 07:58 AM
 xEnOnn Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 25

hmm.. so the dual axioms are not equal of each other. but I am still a little confused.

So I don't use duality when simplifying expressions since they are not equivalent of each other?

And when given a SOP and asked to convert to a POS, it is just the complement of SOP right? So POS = (SOP)' right?

Funny thing is when I have say X'.Z' + W'.Z as a SOP, and when I "NOT" it to get the POS, I have this: (X'.Z' + W'.Z)' = (X+Z).(W+Z'). But the answer is (X'+Z).(W'+Z')

From X'.Z' + W'.Z to (X'+Z).(W'+Z') looks like duality but isn't the POS and SOP complements of each other rather than dual?thanks.
#5
02-04-2011, 09:22 AM
 narasimhan Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 72

Quote:
 POS = (SOP)'
That's wrong
Well you got it all messed up. Please read Digital design by Morris Mano. It'll be hard for me to explain the concepts.
First get to know the difference between minterm and maxterm and then POS and SOP.

But anyway here you go
Minterm'=Maxterm

A function F is given in SOP form. to find the POS of F do the following steps.
1. Find the minterms of F
2. Find the SOP of F'(by combining the omitted minterms)
3. Take complement of F' i.e. (F')'=F So you would end up with the POS of F

And remember this
POS of F=(SOP of F')'
#6
02-04-2011, 03:21 PM
 xEnOnn Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 25

oohhh! The POS is NOT the complement of SOP.

I tried your steps and it works! I got the POS of function F from a simplified SOP of function F.

So the POS is the complement of the omitted minterms, which are the maxterms that return 0 on the truth table. Therefore, I cannot just complement the minterms that I have because by doing so, these are the maxterms that return 1 but not 0, is this right?

Just to clarify something, the minterm are just any m0, m1, m# terms that are not neccessary to need to have result of 1, right? It can also can a result of 0. It is just during the sum of minterms that we gather only the minterms that return 1, right? Similarly for maxterms, the results of the maxterm can either be 0 or 1. But the maxterms must have a result of 0 when I want to put it into a POS.

#7
02-04-2011, 03:35 PM
 narasimhan Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 72

Quote:
 oohhh! The POS is NOT the complement of SOP. I tried your steps and it works! I got the POS of function F from a simplified SOP of function F.
Till this I understand. You are making quite a progress.

Quote:
 So the POS is the complement of the omitted minterms, which are the maxterms that return 0 on the truth table. Therefore, I cannot just complement the minterms that I have because by doing so, these are the maxterms that return 1 but not 0, is this right?
I guess this is also right.

Quote:
 the minterm are just any m0, m1, m# terms that are not neccessary to need to have result of 1, right? It can also can a result of 0. It is just during the sum of minterms that we gather only the minterms that return 1, right? Similarly for maxterms, the results of the maxterm can either be 0 or 1. But the maxterms must have a result of 0 when I want to put it into a POS.
This is a bit confusing.
For sum of minterms you need to include all minterms which are 1.

For product of maxterms you need to include all maxterms which are 0.

Moreover you can't combine minterms and maxterms
#8
02-04-2011, 08:47 PM
 xEnOnn Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 25

Say if a minterm of A.B'.C' that returns 0. It is not included in the canonical expression of a function F. Does it still being considered as a minterm of the function F even though it does not result in an 1 and is not included in the canonical expression?

So when I complement a minterm that returns 1, it will just be its maxterm that returns 1.

Is listing all the minterms of a simplified expression and the find its omitting minterms and then sum these omitting minterms and then complement them the only way to find the POS? I find myself taking quite long to complete this process.

I see some similarity in SOP to POS with duality. I am not sure if it is just out of coincidence but can it be used as a short cut? Since duality doesn't mean its "dual'ed" form isn't equals to its original form, how is it used in boolean simplification?
#9
02-05-2011, 05:08 AM
 narasimhan Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 72

Quote:
 Does it still being considered as a minterm of the function F
It is not a minterm of F

Quote:
 So when I complement a minterm that returns 1, it will just be its maxterm that returns 1.
If you complement a minterm of F it'll become a maxterm of F'(not F).

Quote:
 Is listing all the minterms of a simplified expression and the find its omitting minterms and then sum these omitting minterms and then complement them the only way to find the POS? I find myself taking quite long to complete this process.
It is the procedure. Once you master it you can do most of the steps in your mind without pencil and directly arrive at the POS. But it'll require lot of practice.

Quote:
 how is it used in boolean simplification?
I'll give an example
You're need to prove the two properties
A) xy+x'z+yz=xy+x'z
B) (x+y)(x'+z)(y+z)=(x+y)(x'+z)

After you prove A you need not prove B. You can just say by duality principle B is also true. i.e B is the dual of A
 The Following User Says Thank You to narasimhan For This Useful Post: xEnOnn (02-06-2011)
#10
02-06-2011, 02:08 PM
 xEnOnn Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 25

ahh... okay... I get what the duality is for now. It is not for direct expression equivalence. but rather a way to use a rule that was proven for a SOP on a POS or vice versa.

thanks!! thank you so much!!

 Tags algebra, boolean, duality, principle

 Related Site Pages Section Title Worksheet Sum-of-Products and Product-of-Sums expressions Worksheet Boolean algebra Worksheet Digital display circuits Worksheet Karnaugh mapping Video Lecture Completing Truth Tables - Digital Textbook (sum) and (product) notation : Karnaugh Mapping Textbook Minterm vs maxterm solution : Karnaugh Mapping Textbook Converting truth tables into Boolean expressions : Boolean Algebra Textbook Boolean algebraic identities : Boolean Algebra Textbook Quantum physics : Solid-state Device Theory

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post j3lr0m Homework Help 3 10-15-2010 12:54 AM jegues Homework Help 4 09-23-2010 06:55 PM bigga Homework Help 3 08-12-2010 12:26 PM captainjapan Homework Help 2 10-22-2008 11:34 PM kazafz Math 7 08-14-2008 01:53 PM

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Electronics Forums     General Electronics Chat     The Projects Forum     Homework Help     Electronics Resources Software, Microcomputing, and Communications Forums     Programmer's Corner     Embedded Systems and Microcontrollers     Computing and Networks     Radio and Communications Circuits and Projects     The Completed Projects Collection Abstract Forums     Math     Physics     General Science All About Circuits Commmunity Forums     Off-Topic     The Flea Market     Feedback and Suggestions

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:06 AM.