At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
its been a while since ive dealt with truth tables and things like it, but when you negate something with a ^ or v in it, dont you switch it to the other?
hold on im not sure let me look at me txt book!
i might be completely wrong, its been a while.
i think my book is in my car <.< im to tired to get it lol
~( p∧q)⇔~ p ∨ ~q by law 1 and this is not equivalent to ~ p ∧ ~ q, since if p is true and q is false, the first statement is true but the second is false. i got this from a website not sure if it correct!
i think thats right. I remember always having to switch the sign when you negate.
ima go get my book lol >.>
joe how would u write in ur own words?
if the problem didnt say "using De Morgan's Law", i would just use truth tables to show they arent equivalent.
but, since it say that, im looking through my book to see which Law would directly oppose that statement
alright i got it. i'll post a pic in a sec.
by definition, the negation of (p ^ q) is (~p OR ~q), so they are not equivalent
@ Joe i thnk i got it thanks!
...and it looks like we arent able to post pics for the time being =/ bleh. Well, one of de Morgan's Laws is: \[\lnot(p\land q) \Leftrightarrow (\lnot p)\lor (\lnot q)\]