Firejay5
  • Firejay5
How do you construct a truth table for #24? Medal will be rewarded for work shown or answer explained accurately and correct.
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
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.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
Firejay5
  • Firejay5
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378857355233:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
now negate that statement again.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

Firejay5
  • Firejay5
what you mean negate
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378857602486:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
well turning a statement negative, in logic meaning not, means that true becomes false, false becomes true.
Firejay5
  • Firejay5
So is #24 and 25 on my link the samething, but just opposite
Firejay5
  • Firejay5
|dw:1378858022118:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
not quite. \[\Large \neg(\neg p \vee q) \Leftrightarrow p \wedge \neg q \] As in \[\Large p \vee(q \rightarrow p) \Leftrightarrow p \vee (\neg q \vee p) \Leftrightarrow p \vee \neg q \]
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378858177323:dw|
Firejay5
  • Firejay5
Is that I for the last column
anonymous
  • anonymous
The last column reads as (from the top to the bottom) \[\Large \neg (\neg p \vee q) \] False (F) True (T) False (F) False (F)
Firejay5
  • Firejay5
What is the correct answer for #24
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well I am not sure what you mean with the correct answer for 24, it asks you to compute the truth tables. That is a part of logic. Consider two statements, p and q, A statement (in mathematical logic) can only have two values, it can be True or False, nothing in between (that would be a topic for predicate logic) So if you look at two statements at the same time, p can be true and so can be q, or p can be false and q can still be true, the converse is that p is false and q is true, or both statements p and q can be false. This are the first lines of my truth tables, later on I just computed the statement not p, I did this by negating the column of statement p (turning true into false)
anonymous
  • anonymous
So if your teacher/instructor/professor wants a truth table as an answer, then I would hand you that in, including all the work. If you're having problem with any of the steps I applied though you can ask, it is important though that you understand the concept and meanings of OR which is denoted as a v and so on.
Firejay5
  • Firejay5
like how many steps total should be on the truth table
anonymous
  • anonymous
Let me help you again, I will try to do it a bit better this time: |dw:1378858984168:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378859216472:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378859407598:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
Sorry some of the words got cut out, I hope you can still decipher it and have a better insight into my step, you were right, I would agree and say that a good truth table requires four steps, the first one being the elementary of writing out the possibilities for the two statements p and q. The second one would be negating p because that is in the problem, the third one would be computing the compound statement within the brackets and the last one would be negating that entire statement again.
Firejay5
  • Firejay5
so there are 3 or 4
anonymous
  • anonymous
4 demonstrative steps, 1) Setting up the elementary statements for p and q 2) negating p (NOT p) 3) computing the compound statement: NOT p OR q 4) negating the entire compound statement NOT (NOT p OR q)

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.