p implies r q implies r conclusion (p or q ) implies r show they sre...
5 points Show that p + (q + r) and q + (pvr) are logically equivalent without using a truth table. To get full credit, include which logical equivalences you used.
3. (10 pts.) Use logical equivalences to show that (p r)v(q r) and (pAq) r ane logically equivalent.
How do you show the following propositions are logically equivalent? (a) [(p → q) → r] ⊕ (p ∧ q ∧ r) and (p ∨ r) ⊕ (p ∧ q) (b) ¬∃x {P(x) → ∃y [Q(x, y) ⊕ R(x, y)] } and (∀x P(x)) ∧ [∀x ∀y(Q(x, y) ↔ R(x, y))] (c) Does [(p → q) ∧ (q → r)] → r implies (p → r) → r?
6. Maximum score 3 ( 1 per part).Show that:(b) (p → q) → r and p →(q → r) are not logically equivalent.(c) p ↔ q and ¬ p ↔ ¬ q are logically equivalent.
answer. A4 Consider a formal argument which has two premises: “p implies not q”, and “p or not q”, with the conclusion that “q is false”. a. Is this a valid argument? Give a truth table that verifies your b. Convert the statement “any integer less than C is also less than Cz" into “r implies s” form: i.e. what are the statements r and s? (Remember to substitute your integer values of C and C3.) c. Fix any integer...
Question: Show that the propositions (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r) and (p ∧ r) ⊕ (¬p ∧ q) are logically equivalent.
Show that ~p -> (q -> r) and q-> (p v r) are logically equivalent
Problem 3.11 Show using a chain of logical equivalences that (p → r)A(q → r) pv q) →
WITHOUT constructing TT Show whether or not p-, q ^ (q-r)-p-, r is logically equivalent to
2. (a) Show that (PVQ) + R is not logically equivalent to (P + R) V(Q + R) using a truth table. (b) Is (PAQ) → R logically equivalent to (P + R) A( Q R )? If so, use a truth table to establish this. If not, show that it is false.