Prove logical equivalence with negations and implications

[Leanna]

I'm stuck on this proof question:
(¬(Q⇒¬P) ∧ ¬((Q∧¬R)⇒¬P )) ⇔ ¬(R ∨ (P ⇒¬Q))

I've tried to get rid of the negation and implications but I keep going in circles and I'm getting nowhere near to the equivalence required. I would appreciative if anyone can help me solve this because it's really been doing my head in :/

 

[Leanna]

If you see question marks that's the negation

 

[Dethrone]

Hi Leanna,

I'm not sure what kind of proof structure is required, but you can obtain the results if you use the following:
$\lnot (Q \implies \lnot P) \iff (Q \land P)$, De Morgan's, and the fact that $Q \land Q \land P \iff Q \land P$.

 

[Evgeny.Makarov]

I'm stuck on this proof question:
(¬(Q⇒¬P) ∧ ¬((Q∧¬R)⇒¬P )) ⇔ ¬(R ∨ (P ⇒¬Q))

What exactly is the question? What you have written is a formula.