# How can i make my solution more general in logic?

For any formula, there exists an equivalent formula that contains no connectives other than ⊃ and ⊥. In this sense, {⊃, ⊥} is an “adequate” set of connectives.

I want to prove that {∧, ¬} is adequate.

My solution is, A and B is an atom. Recall that any general form (AVB) is truth-functionality equivalent to ¬(¬A∧¬B)

I prove this with truth table.

A|B|AVB|¬(¬A∧¬B)

t t| t | t

t f| t | t

f t| t | t

f f| f | f

yes it is adequate, but i want to prove it more general ex, any formula can prove this.

How can i prove it for general?

If you already know that $\{ ⊃, ⊥ \}$ is adequate, the simplest way to prove that also $\{ ∧, ¬ \}$ is so is to show how to define :

$p ⊃ q$ and $⊥$

in terms of $\{ ∧, ¬ \}$.

• So can i say that, ¬p ~ p ⊃ ⊥ if F~G then for every interpretation of F must be equal to the truth table of G. In the truth table i will prove they are true, then i will show that p ∧q ~(p ⊃(q ⊃ ⊥)) ⊃ ⊥ i prove it in the truth table then, can i say that {∧,¬} is adequate? – M.J.Watson Nov 16 '16 at 10:11
• @M.J.Watson - more or less; proving (with truth-table) that $p \to q$ is equiv to $\lnot (p \land \lnot q)$ you can conclude that you can dispense with $\to$ . The next step is to find an equivalent for $\bot$. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Nov 16 '16 at 10:29