 Quote by honestrosewater
Did you try changing the implication to a disjunction first, before distributing the negation?
1] ~(p -> ~q)
2] ~(~p v ~q)
3] ?
|
Thanks for your reply honestrosewater.
Okay if I play that way
~(~p v ~q) <=> ~[~(p ^ q)] <=> p ^ q
Is that the correct process to acquire that answer then. First negate the antecedent and change the conditional to a disjunction. Then does the ~ distribute to both as in my answer above? Or am I going about this the wrong way?
