Confused on how to do a simple discrete math problem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the logical equivalence in discrete mathematics, specifically using the equivalence p→(r→s) ≡ p∧r→s to rewrite a proof involving implications. The user attempts to demonstrate that [p→(q→r)]∧(p→q) tautologically implies (p→r) but struggles with the logical transformations. Key steps include rewriting implications using logical equivalences such as p→(q→r) ≡ p∧q→r and p→q ≡ ¬p∨q. The user seeks clarification on their approach and the implications of p→q on the logical value of (p∧q).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logical equivalences in propositional logic
  • Familiarity with implications and their transformations
  • Knowledge of tautologies and their proofs
  • Basic skills in discrete mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study logical equivalences in propositional logic
  • Learn about tautological implications and their proofs
  • Explore the concept of implications and their transformations in detail
  • Practice rewriting complex logical statements using equivalences
USEFUL FOR

Students studying discrete mathematics, particularly those focusing on logical proofs and equivalences, as well as educators looking for examples of teaching logical transformations.

n00by
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Use the equivalence p\rightarrow(r \rightarrow s) \equiv p\wedge r\rightarrow s to rewrite the following problem before the proof.

Homework Equations



[p\rightarrow (q\rightarrow r)]\wedge (p\rightarrow q) \tautologicallyimplies (p\rightarrow r)


The Attempt at a Solution



[p\rightarrow (q\rightarrow r)]\wedge (p\rightarrow q) \tautologicallyimplies (p\rightarrow r)

1. p\rightarrow (q\rightarrow r) \equiv p\wedge q \rightarrow r \equiv \neg p \vee \neg q \vee r
2. p\rightarrow q \equiv \neg p \vee q

3. (\neg p \vee q)\wedge (\neg p \vee \neg q \vee r) \equiv ... \equiv p \rightarrow q\wedge r

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Does anyone know how to do this proof?
 
Go back to (p and q) -> r. What does p -> q say about the logical value of (p and q)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K