Scribd
Upload
6 views

MTH202_Assignment1

The document presents logical equivalences and truth tables for various logical statements. It demonstrates that ¬(p ∨ q) is logically equivalent to (¬p ∧ ¬q), identifies (p → q) ∨ (¬q → ¬p) as a tautology, and evaluates the validity of an argument involving premises p → q, q → r, and ¬r leading to ¬p. The conclusions are supported by the truth tables provided.

Uploaded by

Shiza Rashad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views

MTH202_Assignment1

The document presents logical equivalences and truth tables for various logical statements. It demonstrates that ¬(p ∨ q) is logically equivalent to (¬p ∧ ¬q), identifies (p → q) ∨ (¬q → ¬p) as a tautology, and evaluates the validity of an argument involving premises p → q, q → r, and ¬r leading to ¬p. The conclusions are supported by the truth tables provided.

Uploaded by

Shiza Rashad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Mth202;

Question 1:
Prove the logical equivalence using a membership (truth) table:

¬(p ∨ q) ≡ (¬p ∧ ¬q)

Truth Table:

p q ¬(p ∨ q) ¬p ¬q ∧ ¬p

T T F F F

T F F F F

F T F T F

F F T T T

Conclusion: Since the columns for ¬(p ∨ q) and (¬p ∧ ¬q) are identical, the two statements are
logically equivalent.

Question 2:
Using a truth table, determine whether the following compound statement is a tautology,
contradiction, or contingency:

(p → q) ∨ (¬q → ¬p)

Truth Table:

p q p→q ¬q → ¬p (p → q) ∨ (¬q →
¬p)

T T T T T

T F F F F

F T T T T

F F T T T

Conclusion: The final column contains all 'True' values. Therefore, the compound statement is a
tautology.
Question 3:
Construct a truth table for the following expression:

(p ∧ ¬q) → (q ∨ r)

Truth Table:

p q r p ∧ ¬q q∨r (p ∧ ¬q) →
(q ∨ r)

T T T F T T

T T F F T T

T F T T T T

T F F T F F

F T T F T T

F T F F T T

F F T F T T

F F F F F T

Question 4:
Using a truth table, determine the validity of the argument:

Premises:

1. p → q

2. q → r

3. ¬r

Conclusion: ∴ ¬p

Truth Table:
p q r p→q q→r ¬r ¬p

T T T T T F F

T T F T F T F

T F T F T F F
T F F F T T F

F T T T T F T

F T F T F T T

F F T T T F T

F F F T T T T

Conclusion: The argument is valid if whenever all premises are true, the conclusion (¬p)
is also true. This can be verified by analyzing the rows in the truth table.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy