Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Without using truth table, show that
~r → ~ (p ∧ q) ≡ [~ (q → r)] → ~ p
Advertisements
Solution
L.H.S.
≡ ~r → ~ (p ∧ q)
≡ ~(~ r) ∨ ~ (p ∧ q) ....[p → q ≡ ~ p ∨ q]
≡ r ∨ ~(p ∧ q) ....[Negation of negation]
≡ r ∨ (~p ∨ ~q) ....[De Morgan’s law]
≡ ~p ∨ (~q ∨ r) .....[Commutative and associative law]
≡ ~p ∨ (q → r) ....[p → q ≡ ~ p ∨ q]
≡ (q → r) ∨ ~p ......[Commutative law]
≡ ~[~ (q → r)] ∨ ~ p ......[Negation of negation]
≡ [~ (q → r)] → ~ p .....[p → q ≡ ~ p ∨ q]
= R.H.S.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
The negation of p ∧ (q → r) is ______________.
Without using truth tabic show that ~(p v q)v(~p ∧ q) = ~p
Using the rules of negation, write the negatlon of the following:
(a) p ∧ (q → r)
(b) ~P ∨ ~q
Write the Truth Value of the Negation of the Following Statement :
The Sun sets in the East.
Rewrite the following statement without using if ...... then.
If a man is a judge then he is honest.
Rewrite the following statement without using if ...... then.
It 2 is a rational number then `sqrt2` is irrational number.
Without using truth table prove that:
∼ [(p ∨ ∼ q) → (p ∧ ∼ q)] ≡ (p ∨ ∼ q) ∧ (∼ p ∨ q)
Using rules in logic, prove the following:
p ↔ q ≡ ∼(p ∧ ∼q) ∧ ∼(q ∧ ∼p)
Using rules in logic, prove the following:
∼p ∧ q ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ ∼p
Using the rules in logic, write the negation of the following:
(p ∨ q) ∧ (q ∨ ∼r)
Using the rules in logic, write the negation of the following:
p ∧ (q ∨ r)
Without using truth table, show that
p ∧ [(~ p ∨ q) ∨ ~ q] ≡ p
Without using truth table, show that
~ [(p ∧ q) → ~ q] ≡ p ∧ q
Using the algebra of statement, prove that
[p ∧ (q ∨ r)] ∨ [~ r ∧ ~ q ∧ p] ≡ p
For any two statements p and q, the negation of the expression (p ∧ ∼q) ∧ ∼p is ______
(p → q) ∨ p is logically equivalent to ______
The logically equivalent statement of (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r) is ______
The negation of p → (~p ∨ q) is ______
Without using truth table prove that (p ∧ q) ∨ (∼ p ∧ q) v (p∧ ∼ q) ≡ p ∨ q
If p ∨ q is true, then the truth value of ∼ p ∧ ∼ q is ______.
Which of the following is not a statement?
Without using truth table, prove that : [(p ∨ q) ∧ ∼p] →q is a tautology.
Without using truth table prove that
[(p ∧ q ∧ ∼ p) ∨ (∼ p ∧ q ∧ r) ∨ (p ∧ q ∧ r) ∨ (p ∧ ∼ q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ r
Show that the simplified form of (p ∧ q ∧ ∼ r) ∨ (r ∧ p ∧ q) ∨ (∼ p ∨ q) is q ∨ ∼ p.
