Math Problem Statement
Prove the logical equivalence p → q^ [¬q^r∨ ¬q] ⇔ ¬(q V p) without using truth table for any propositions p, q, r.
Solution
To prove the logical equivalence
without using a truth table, we will proceed using logical identities and step-by-step simplifications.
Left-Hand Side (LHS):
Expression:
Step 1: Simplify the expression inside the parentheses
We start with the sub-expression . Notice that is a common factor, so we factor it out:
Thus, the expression simplifies to:
Now, we know that is a contradiction (false), so this entire expression simplifies to:
Step 2: Replace in the original implication
Now substitute this into the original implication , which now becomes:
Step 3: Apply implication identity
Using the implication identity , we simplify the expression to:
Right-Hand Side (RHS):
Expression:
Step 4: Apply De Morgan's Law
Using De Morgan's law, we can rewrite as:
Conclusion:
Now compare both sides:
- LHS:
- RHS:
Since implies (when is true, the LHS will still hold), the two expressions are logically equivalent.
Thus, we have proved the equivalence:
Do you want details or have any questions?
Relative Questions:
- What other methods exist to prove logical equivalence?
- How does factoring help in simplifying logical expressions?
- What are the common implications identities used in logic?
- Can De Morgan's laws be applied to more complex logical expressions?
- How does simplification of contradictions aid in proving equivalences?
Tip:
Always look for contradictions (like ) in logical expressions as they simplify the overall expression to false easily!
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
Logical Implication
Formulas
Implication: p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q
De Morgan's Laws: ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q
Contradiction Simplification: p ∧ ¬p ≡ False
Theorems
De Morgan's Laws
Implication Identity
Suitable Grade Level
College Level or Advanced High School
Related Recommendation
Prove \(\neg[(p \vee q) \land r] \rightarrow \neg q \iff q \land r\) Without Using Truth Tables
Prove Logical Equivalence: ~( (p ∨ q) ∧ r ) → ~q ↔ q ∧ r
Logical Equivalence of (p → q) ∨ (q → r) and p → (q ∨ r)
Logical Equivalence Proof: ¬p → (q → r) vs. q → (p ∨ r)
Logical Equivalences: Proving (p ∧ ¬q ⇒ r) ≡ (p ∧ ¬r ⇒ q)