Math Problem Statement
Consider the propositional formula ( NOT ( P ) IFF Q ) IMPLIES R and the formula ( P AND Q ) OR ( NOT ( P ) AND NOT ( Q ) ) OR R .Prove that the two formulas are equivalent, using logical rules
Solution
We are given two propositional formulas:
We need to prove that these two formulas are logically equivalent. To do this, we will simplify both formulas using logical rules and show that they reduce to the same form.
Formula 1:
We'll begin by breaking down this formula step by step:
Step 1: Expand
The biconditional can be rewritten as two implications:
Step 2: Rewrite each implication
Using the implication identity , we rewrite both implications:
So, the biconditional becomes:
Step 3: Substitution into the original formula
Now we substitute this back into the original formula:
Step 4: Apply implication
Again, using the implication identity , we rewrite the entire formula as:
Step 5: Apply De Morgan’s Law
To simplify , we use De Morgan's Law:
Using De Morgan's Law again on both parts:
Thus, the formula simplifies to:
Formula 2:
Ask a new question for Free
By Image
Drop file here or Click Here to upload
Math Problem Analysis
Mathematical Concepts
Propositional Logic
Logical Equivalence
Biconditional
Implication
De Morgan's Law
Formulas
Biconditional: A ↔ B ≡ (A → B) ∧ (B → A)
Implication: A → B ≡ ¬A ∨ B
De Morgan's Law: ¬(A ∧ B) ≡ ¬A ∨ ¬B and ¬(A ∨ B) ≡ ¬A ∧ ¬B
Theorems
De Morgan's Laws
Rules of Logical Equivalence
Implication Identity
Suitable Grade Level
Undergraduate Logic or Discrete Mathematics
Related Recommendation
Proving Logical Equivalence of (NOT P IFF Q) IMPLIES R and (P AND Q) OR (NOT P AND NOT Q) OR R
Prove Logical Equivalence Between (NOT P IFF Q) IMPLIES R and (P AND Q) OR (NOT P AND NOT Q) OR R
Logical Equivalences: Proving (P → R) ∧ (Q → R) ≡ (P ∨ Q) → R and ¬(P ∨ (Q ∧ R)) ≡ ¬P ∧ (¬Q ∨ ¬R)
Proof of Logical Equivalence between (P → Q) V R and ¬((P∧¬Q)∧¬R) using Truth Table
Logical Equivalence Proof: ¬p → (q → r) vs. q → (p ∨ r)