Math Problem Statement

solve and show steps

[(¬p ∧ ¬q) → (p ∧ q ∧ r)] ⟷ p ∧ q

Solution

The expression you provided involves logical propositions and can be analyzed using truth tables or logical equivalences. The expression given is:

[(¬p¬q)(pqr)]    pq[(\neg p \wedge \neg q) \rightarrow (p \wedge q \wedge r)] \iff p \wedge q

Let's break down this expression step by step:

  1. Negation and Conjunction:

    • ¬p¬q\neg p \wedge \neg q: This expression is true only when both pp and qq are false.
  2. Implication:

    • An implication (AB)(A \rightarrow B) is false only if AA is true and BB is false. Otherwise, it is true.
  3. Right side of Implication:

    • pqrp \wedge q \wedge r: This is true only when pp, qq, and rr are all true.

Given the first part ¬p¬q\neg p \wedge \neg q is true when both pp and qq are false, the implication (pqr)(p \wedge q \wedge r) will be vacuously true (since ¬p¬q\neg p \wedge \neg q being true guarantees that pqrp \wedge q \wedge r is false). Therefore, the implication will always be true except in the scenario where pp and qq are true but rr is false.

  1. Bi-conditional:
    • (A    B)(A \iff B) is true if both AA and BB are either true or false together.

To determine the truth value of the entire expression, we need to evaluate the bi-conditional relation to see if the left side of the implication is logically equivalent to pqp \wedge q.

Now, let's build a truth table to examine the truth values for all combinations of pp, qq, and rr:

p & q & r & \neg p \wedge \neg q & (p \wedge q \wedge r) & [(\neg p \wedge \neg q) \rightarrow (p \wedge q \wedge r)] \iff p \wedge q \\ \hline T & T & T & F & T & T \iff T \text{ (True)} \\ T & T & F & F & F & T \iff T \text{ (True)} \\ T & F & T & F & F & T \iff F \text{ (False)} \\ T & F & F & F & F & T \iff F \text{ (False)} \\ F & T & T & F & F & T \iff F \text{ (False)} \\ F & T & F & F & F & T \iff F \text{ (False)} \\ F & F & T & T & F & F \iff F \text{ (True)} \\ F & F & F & T & F & F \iff F \text{ (True)} \\ \end{array}$$ From the truth table, we see that the expression is true in some cases and false in others. It's evident that the bi-conditional statement does not hold for all cases; thus, the expression is not a tautology. Would you like any further explanations on any of the steps? Here are some follow-up questions and a tip to consider: 1. How does the implication logical operator work in more detail? 2. What happens if we change the conjunction on the right-hand side of the implication to a disjunction? 3. Can you provide real-life examples of when such logical expressions might be used? 4. What is the impact of including more variables in such logical expressions? 5. How do different values of $$r$$ affect the overall truth value of the expression? **Tip**: Exploring variations of complex logical expressions by altering logical operators or the variables involved can offer deeper insights into logical structures and their applications.

Ask a new question for Free

By Image

Drop file here or Click Here to upload

Math Problem Analysis

Mathematical Concepts

Propositional Logic
Logical Connectives
Truth Tables

Formulas

Implication (A → B)
Bi-conditional (A ⟷ B)
Conjunction (A ∧ B)
Negation (¬A)

Theorems

Implication Truth Table
Bi-conditional Truth Table
Conjunction and Negation

Suitable Grade Level

Grades 10-12 (High School/Intro to College Logic)