Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Using logical equivalences, show that (¬Q n (P => Q)) => ¬P is a tautology watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    this is what i have so far:

    (¬Q n (P => Q)) => ¬P

    (¬Q n (P v ¬Q)) => ¬P (using implication law)

    (¬Q n P) v (¬Q n ¬Q) => ¬P (using distributive law)

    not sure where to go from here or if i've even done the question right. any ideas?

    all help is much appreciated thanks in advance
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    Study Helper
    (Original post by baws.)
    this is what i have so far:

    (¬Q n (P => Q)) => ¬P

    (¬Q n (P v ¬Q)) => ¬P (using implication law)

    (¬Q n P) v (¬Q n ¬Q) => ¬P (using distributive law)

    not sure where to go from here or if i've even done the question right. any ideas?

    all help is much appreciated thanks in advance
    Your first step is incorrrect. Check the implication law.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There are two variables thus 4 possible valuations. Just check 'em all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ghostwalker: i corrected it but i end up with (¬Q n ¬P) v (¬Q n Q) ?

    mark85: the question tells me i have to use logical equivalences
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    Study Helper
    (Original post by baws.)
    ghostwalker: i corrected it but i end up with (¬Q n ¬P) v (¬Q n Q) ?
    I presume you mean all that => ¬P

    You can carry on from there.

    What's (¬Q n Q)?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ah.. think i'm being stupid

    (¬Q n Q) is false, so i'm left with ¬Q n ¬P => ¬P which is correct, since ¬P is true on both sides. right?

    keep treating => as =
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    Study Helper
    (Original post by baws.)
    ah.. think i'm being stupid

    (¬Q n Q) is false, so i'm left with ¬Q n ¬P => ¬P which is correct, since ¬P is true on both sides. right?

    keep treating => as =
    Brackets are important. I know what you mean, but as it's written (in bold) it's ambiguous.

    Well, I'd go all the way and reduce it to "T" using logical equivalences.
    I'd apply the implication law again, etc.

    But if you've covered that particular formula already, it's probably fine to leave it as is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    thank you for all your help man
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    Study Helper
    (Original post by baws.)
    thank you for all your help man
    np.

    Corrected last post. Meant implication law, not distribution law.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mark85)
    There are two variables thus 4 possible valuations. Just check 'em all.
    Doing it that way implicitly assumes the completeness theorem for propositional logic, which is non-trivial.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.