Question

are they logically equivalent (show how) truth table or in word:: a) p —> ( q...

are they logically equivalent (show how) truth table or in word::
a) p —> ( q —> r ) and ( p -> q) —> r

b) p^ (q v r ) and ( p ^ q) v ( p ^ r )




Homework Answers

Know the answer?
Your Answer:

Post as a guest

Your Name:

What's your source?

Earn Coins

Coins can be redeemed for fabulous gifts.

Not the answer you're looking for?
Ask your own homework help question
Similar Questions
1) Show that ¬p → (q → r) and q → (p ∨ r) are logically...
1) Show that ¬p → (q → r) and q → (p ∨ r) are logically equivalent. No truth table and please state what law you're using. Also, please write neat and clear. Thanks 2) .Show that (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r) → (q ∨ r) is a tautology. No truth table and please state what law you're using. Also, please write neat and clear.
Let P and Q be statements: (a) Use truth tables to show that ∼ (P or...
Let P and Q be statements: (a) Use truth tables to show that ∼ (P or Q) = (∼ P) and (∼ Q). (b) Show that ∼ (P and Q) is logically equivalent to (∼ P) or (∼ Q). (c) Summarize (in words) what we have learned from parts a and b.
Use a truth table to determine whether the two statements are equivalent. ~p->~q, q->p Construct a...
Use a truth table to determine whether the two statements are equivalent. ~p->~q, q->p Construct a truth table for ~p->~q Construct a truth table for q->p
Are the statement forms P∨((Q∧R)∨ S) and ¬((¬ P)∧(¬(Q∧ R)∧ (¬ S))) logically equivalent? I found...
Are the statement forms P∨((Q∧R)∨ S) and ¬((¬ P)∧(¬(Q∧ R)∧ (¬ S))) logically equivalent? I found that they were not logically equivalent but wanted to check. Also, does the negation outside the parenthesis on the second statement form cancel out with the negation in front of P and in front of (Q∧ R)∧ (¬ S)) ?
Show the following are not logically equivalent: ∀xP (x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) and ∀x(P (x) ∨ Q(x)).
Show the following are not logically equivalent: ∀xP (x) ∨ ∀xQ(x) and ∀x(P (x) ∨ Q(x)).
Use a truth table to determine whether the following argument is valid. p →q ∨ ∼r...
Use a truth table to determine whether the following argument is valid. p →q ∨ ∼r q → p ∧ r ∴ p →r
Write a C++ program to construct the truth table of P || !(Q && R)
Write a C++ program to construct the truth table of P || !(Q && R)
Use two truth tables to show that the pair of compound statements are equivalent. p ∨...
Use two truth tables to show that the pair of compound statements are equivalent. p ∨ (q ∧ ~p); p ∨ q p q p ∨ (q ∧ ~p) T T ? ? ? ? ? T F ? ? ? ? ? F T ? ? ? ? ? F F ? ? ? ? ? p ∨ q T ? T T ? F F ? T F ? F
[16pt] Which of the following formulas are semantically equivalent to p → (q ∨ r): For...
[16pt] Which of the following formulas are semantically equivalent to p → (q ∨ r): For each formula from the following (denoted by X) that is equivalent to p → (q ∨ r), prove the validity of X « p → (q ∨ r) using natural deduction. For each formula that is not equivalent to p → (q ∨ r), draw its truth table and clearly mark the entries that result in the inequivalence. Assume the binding priority used in...
(1) Determine whether the propositions p → (q ∨ ¬r) and (p ∧ ¬q) → ¬r...
(1) Determine whether the propositions p → (q ∨ ¬r) and (p ∧ ¬q) → ¬r are logically equivalent using either a truth table or laws of logic. (2) Let A, B and C be sets. If a is the proposition “x ∈ A”, b is the proposition “x ∈ B” and c is the proposition “x ∈ C”, write down a proposition involving a, b and c that is logically equivalentto“x∈A∪(B−C)”. (3) Consider the statement ∀x∃y¬P(x,y). Write down a...