De Morgan’s Laws are the most important rules of Set Theory and Boolean Algebra. This post will discuss in detail about what are De Morgan’s Laws, details about first law and second Law, verification of these laws and their applications.
What are De Morgan’s Laws
Augustus De Morgan was a British Mathematician who formulated laws or rules of Set Theory and Boolean Algebra that relates three basic ‘Set’ operations; Union, Intersection and Complement. De Morgan laws are a couple of theorems that are related to each other.
In Propositional Logic and Boolean Algebra, these laws are seen as rules of transformation. These laws can be proved using Venn Diagrams and Truth-tables.
Fig. 1 – Introduction to De Morgan’s Laws
De Morgan’s texts were outstanding which included Algebra, Trigonometry, Differential and Integral Calculus, Probability and Symbolic Logic. De Morgan pioneered Propositional Calculus. He devised Algorithm for approximating factorials in the 19th Century.
Fig. 2 – Augustus De Morgan
De Morgan’s Laws
The two laws stated by him are:
- De Morgan’s Law of Union or First Law
- De Morgan’s Law of Intersection or Second Law
De Morgan’s Law of Union or First Law
The first law or the Law of Union states that: If A and B are two finite sets or subsets of a Universal Subset U then, the element not in A ∪ B is not in A’ and not in B’. Conversely, it also states that an element not in A’ and not in B’ is not in A ∪ B. i.e.
(A U B)’ = A’ ∩ B’ where:
∪ denotes the Union (OR).
A’ refers to the set complement (NOT) of A in U, i.e., A’ = U\A
It can also be defined as; the complement of the union of two sets is the same as the Intersection of their complements; i.e.
Not (A or B) = Not A and Not B
De Morgan’s Law of Intersection or Second Law
The second law or the Law of Intersection states that an element not in A ∩ B is not in A’ or not in B’. Conversely, it also states that an element not in A’ or not in B’ is not in A ∩ B. i.e.
(A ∩ B) ‘ = A’ ∪ B’ where:
∩ denotes the Intersection.
It can also be defined as; the complement of the Intersection of two sets is the same as the Union of their complements; i.e.
Not (A and B) = Not A or Not B
Fig. 3, shows Venn Diagram representing logical relations between finite sets.
Fig. 3 – Venn Diagram of Finite Sets
Verification of First and Second Law
The laws can be verified or proved as shown below:
Verification of De Morgan’s Law of Union or First Law
 (A U B)’ = A’ ∩ B’
Let P = (A U B)’ and Q = A’ ∩ B’
Let x be an arbitrary element of P then x ∈ P ⇒ x ∈ (A U B)’
⇒ x ∉ (A U B)
⇒ x ∉ A and x ∉ B
⇒ x ∈ A’ and x ∈ B’
⇒ x ∈ A’ ∩ B’
⇒ x ∈ Q
Therefore, P ⊂ Q ……………. (i)
Again, let y be an arbitrary element of Q then y ∈ Q ⇒ y ∈ A’ ∩ B’
⇒ y ∈ A’ and y ∈ B’
⇒ y ∉ A and y ∉ B
⇒ y ∉ (A U B)
⇒ y ∈ (A U B)’
⇒ y ∈ P
Therefore, Q ⊂ P …………….. (ii)
Now combine (i) and (ii) we get; P = Q i.e. (A U B)’ = A’ ∩ B’. Hence proved.
Example of De Morgan’s Law of Union or First LawÂ
Let us consider two finite sets ‘P’ and ‘Q’ in the universal set U and
Let U = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}, P = {4, 5, 6} and Q = {5, 6, 8}.
Now let us verify: (P ∪ Q)’ = P’ ∩ Q’.
P ∪ Q = {4, 5, 6} ∪ {5, 6, 8}
= {4, 5, 6, 8}
Therefore, (P ∪ Q)’ = {1, 2, 3, 7}  ……………….. (i)
As we know P = {4, 5, 6} so, P’ = {1, 2, 3, 7, 8}
and Q = {5, 6, 8} so, Q’ = {1, 2, 3, 4, 7}
P’ ∩ Q’ = {1, 2, 3, 7, 8} ∩ {1, 2, 3, 4, 7}
Therefore, P’ ∩ Q’ = {1, 2, 3, 7}  ……………….. (ii)
Combining (i) and (ii) we get;
(P ∪ Q)’ = P’ ∩ Q’. Hence proved.
Fig. 4 – Venn Diagrams Representing De Morgan’s Laws
Verification of De Morgan’s Law of Intersection or Second Law
(A ∩ B)’ = A’ U B’
Let M = (A ∩ B)’ and N = A’ U B’
Let x be an arbitrary element of M then x ∈ M ⇒ x ∈ (A ∩ B)’
⇒ x ∉ (A ∩ B)
⇒ x ∉ A or x ∉ B
⇒ x ∈ A’ or x ∈ B’
⇒ x ∈ A’ U B’
⇒ x ∈ N
Therefore, M ⊂ N ……………. (i)
Again, let y be an arbitrary element of N then y ∈ N ⇒ y ∈ A’ U B’
⇒ y ∈ A’ or y ∈ B’
⇒ y ∉ A or y ∉ B
⇒ y ∉ (A ∩ B)
⇒ y ∈ (A ∩ B)’
⇒ y ∈ M
Therefore, N ⊂ M ……………. (ii)
Now combine (i) and (ii) we get; M = N i.e. (A ∩ B)’ = A’ U B’. Hence proved.
Example for De Morgan’s Law of Intersection or Second Law
If U = {j, k, l, m, n}, X = {j, k, m} and Y = {k, m, n}.
Now let us verify: (X ∩ Y)’ = X’ U Y’.
We know, U = {j, k, l, m, n}
X = {j, k, m}
Y = {k, m, n}
(X ∩ Y) = {j, k, m} ∩ {k, m, n}
= {k, m}
Therefore, (X ∩ Y)’ = {j, l, n} ………………. (i)
Again, X = {j, k, m} so, X’ = {l, n}
and Y = {k, m, n} so, Y’ = {j, l}
X’ ∪ Y’ = {l, n} ∪ {j, l}
Therefore, X’ ∪ Y’ = {j, l, n} ………………. (ii)
Combining (i)and (ii) we get;
(X ∩ Y)’ = X’ U Y’. Hence proved.
Applications of De Morgan’s Laws
These two laws are of utmost importance in various branches of mathematics and engineering. We have seen how they can be applied in mathematics. Similarly, they are applied both in computer and electrical engineering.
These laws are used in designing digital circuits and in verification of SAS code. These laws can also be applied in text searching by using AND, OR and NOT, collectively known as Boolean Operators.
Think of a set containing the words cats and dogs. According to De Morgan’s Laws:
Search A:Â NOT (cats OR dogs)
Search B: (NOT cats) AND (NOT dogs)
Limitation of De Morgan’s Laws
The laws relate conjunction and inclusive dis-junction through Negation.
Also Read: Ohms Law – Voltage, Current & Resistance Relation, When Not Applicable Kirchhoff’s Laws of Current & Voltage – Application, Advantage, Limitation Electromagnetic Induction – Theory, Application, Advantage, Disadvantage
Getting it relinquish someone his, like a bounteous would should
So, how does Tencent’s AI benchmark work? Prime, an AI is prearranged a expert reprove to account from a catalogue of fully 1,800 challenges, from edifice hub visualisations and царство безбрежных полномочий apps to making interactive mini-games.
Intermittently the AI generates the encipher, ArtifactsBench gets to work. It automatically builds and runs the jus gentium ‘pandemic law’ in a non-toxic and sandboxed environment.
To closed how the modus operandi behaves, it captures a series of screenshots all hither time. This allows it to look into up on against things like animations, conditions changes after a button click, and other soul-stirring consumer feedback.
Conclusively, it hands to the dregs all this affirm – the autochthonous importune, the AI’s pandect, and the screenshots – to a Multimodal LLM (MLLM), to feigning as a judge.
This MLLM adjudicate isn’t respected giving a blurry opinion and a substitute alternatively uses a anfractuous, per-task checklist to swarms the d‚nouement lengthen across ten diversified metrics. Scoring includes functionality, the box in circumstance, and unconventional aesthetic quality. This ensures the scoring is proper, in make up for, and thorough.
The conceitedly creator is, does this automated reinforce methodically convey suited taste? The results mention it does.
When the rankings from ArtifactsBench were compared to WebDev Arena, the gold-standard air where bona fide humans ballot on the finest AI creations, they matched up with a 94.4% consistency. This is a huge specimen from older automated benchmarks, which solely managed hither 69.4% consistency.
On lid of this, the framework’s judgments showed in supererogation of 90% unanimity with prepared reactive developers.
[url=https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/]https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/[/url]
Hi, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your website in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, fantastic blog!