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.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions.

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions

I've been working on this but it seem I can't do anymore. =/

Well, tautology is a proposition that is always true. That's all I know. That's all I know.

@brinethery Do you have any idea?

Are you sure it's true? It looks like the converse is true.

I feel like q is irrelvent and its just If P then R

^^ makes alot of sense

I did not say it was true

Mmm I don't understand the expression after "Suppose" what those arrows mean?

I was just trying to show that the expression is not a tautology.

The expression you wrote saying you thought it should be is, in fact, a tautology.

There is no boolean algebra to prove it, you just give a counter example, right?

Do you think that is not possible to find a way to show this using only theorems and definitions?

Which theorems?

How would you show that \(P\) in and of itself is not a tautology?

There is no way to know. Unless you tell me that P can take the values T and F.

and then, by definition of P. P is not a tautology

You meant that proposition is not a tautology.

As far as I know a tautology is a predicate that is always true for any value of their parameters.

\[P\wedge Q\] is a predicate that can be true or false. So it's not a tautology.

Anyway I appreciate your help.

You're claiming it can be false... The point is to get you to prove it without counterexample.

I'm just curious as to the rules of the game.

I think I'm not using a counter example and that is a valid proof.

A tautology is a restatement within the same premiss like all trees are made of wood

I don't think saying "is a predicate that can be true or false." is valid without a counter example.

Or maybe there is another way, but I'm not sure

Is not evident that that predicate can be true or false. Its not a valid proof.

and \[P\wedge Q\]is by definition true or false.

Sure but then what makes something 'evident'?

Is there some standard form you want it to be in?

I wanted to say that there is a definition by saying "evident"

What about \(P\wedge Q \wedge R\)?

let \[P\wedge Q\Leftrightarrow S \]\[S\wedge R\]

I mean prove without counter example

so it's not a tautology.

q's relation to p and r

This is not a tautology:\[P\wedge Q\], not just the \[\wedge \] symbol.

I'm just beginning with this logic things lol.

ahh that is right Edutopia.

But maybe that is a semantic argument? It's just my thought.

I'm not sure, but I think it's valid in math.If\[x=y\]then\[x+a=y+a\]

yes, but in math its all a valid argument because you are using numbers

a=a and so forth

Is this for linear algebra?