Re: ?? Functional Dependency Question ??
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9f6f21fe-7ea6-45f0-bafc-c88d9003fe7b_at_k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 18, 11:18 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> tlbaxte..._at_yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > "Although X->A and X->B implies X->AB by the union rule stated above,
> > X->A, and Y->B does *not* imply that XY->AB."
>
> > I'm not seeing this. It seems to me that X->A, and Y->B *DOES* imply
> > that XY->AB.
>
> > I'm sure I'm wrong but I'm not seeing it. Can someone explain?
>
> > Thanks
>
> I'm not seeing it either. By these truth tables, it seems to:
>
> XY AB X->A Y->B (X->A)(Y->B) XY->AB (X->A)(Y->B)->(XY->AB)
> 00 00 1 1 1 1 1
> 00 01 1 1 1 1 1
> 00 11 1 1 1 1 1
> 00 10 1 1 1 1 1
> 01 10 1 0 0 1 1
> 01 11 1 1 1 1 1
> 01 01 1 1 1 1 1
> 01 00 1 0 0 1 1
> 11 00 0 0 0 0 1
> 11 01 0 1 0 0 1
> 11 11 1 1 1 1 1
> 11 10 1 0 0 0 1
> 10 10 1 1 1 1 1
> 10 11 1 1 1 1 1
> 10 01 0 1 0 1 1
> 10 00 0 1 0 1 1
>
> (View with a fixed width font)
>
> Can anyone find a mistake in the above truth tables? Is there a
> difference between functional dependency and implication that I need to
> learn?
Your truth table is correct. You can also prove this with Boolean algebra (below ~ = not, + = or, * = and):
given :
(1) 1 = ~X + A : X implies A (2) 1 = ~Y + B : Y implies B
prove :
(3) 1 = ~(XY) + AB : XY implies AB
proof :
(4) 1 = (~X + A)(~Y + B) : conjuction of (1) and (2) (5) 1 = ~X~Y + ~XB + ~YA + AB : distributive and commutative (6) 1 = ~X~Y + ~X~Y + ~XB + ~YA + AB : idempotent (7) 1 = ~X(~Y + B) + ~Y(~X + A) + AB : distributive and commutative (8) 1 = ~X + ~Y + AB : substitute (1) and (2) (9) 1 = ~(XY) + AB : De Morgan
QED KHD Received on Sun Oct 19 2008 - 23:07:23 CEST