A community for students. Sign up today!
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing

This Question is Open

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0i suppse \[\neg p \wedge (p \vee q) \equiv p\]

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so then it becomes \[p \rightarrow q\]

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0\[\neg p \wedge (p \vee q) \equiv F \vee (\neg p \wedge q) \rightarrow q\]

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0then this becomes \[T \wedge (p \vee q) \vee q\]

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0then \[T \wedge (p \vee q) \equiv p \vee q \]

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0in my solution i will be treating them the same....my latex is gonna get confusing if i follow the rules

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0\[\equiv p \vee q \vee q\] \[q \vee q \equiv T\] so.. \[\equiv p \vee T \equiv T\] yes?

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so then this is a tautology?

PhoenixFire
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0implication law is P>Q=nP V Q Right? Sorry for no Latex,

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0so is that a yes to my question?

PhoenixFire
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0yes it's a tautology, but you messed something up and somehow ended up with a tautology anyways lol

UnkleRhaukus
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0\[\small¬p∧(p∨q)\Rightarrow q\iff(\neg p\wedge p) \vee(\neg p\lor q)\Rightarrow q\iff (\neg p\lor q)\Rightarrow q \iff (\neg p\Rightarrow q)\vee(q\Rightarrow q )\]\[\iff q\Rightarrow q\qquad \top\]

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0hmm looks different...

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0implication is distributive?

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0seems you're the one who went wrong @PhoenixFire ....

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0\[(\neg p \wedge q) \rightarrow q\] should become \[\neg(\neg p \wedge q) \vee q\] by DM law \[p \vee q \vee q\]

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0hmm seems i missed a step too

lgbasallote
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0nevertheless, important thing is.. i was right....that was my question in the first place anyways

PhoenixFire
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0de morgans law.... you have to negate both. n(nP ^ Q) V Q becomes nnP V nQ V Q

PhoenixFire
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0nnP < Involution law becomes P. What you missed was distributing the negative to the Q during De Morgan's Law
Ask your own question
Ask a QuestionFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.