Prove: ~p ^ (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) v (p ^ r) ≡ r

  • Thread starter Nuha22
  • Start date
  • #1
Nuha22
2
0


show that :
~p ^ (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) v (p ^ r) ≡ r

when i made the truth table of course they were equivalent..

but i don't know what i'm doing wrong ! the end is always T "true" when i try to prove it logically...


Please help !


 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
36,222
8,208
show that :
~p ^ (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) v (p ^ r) ≡ r

when i made the truth table of course they were equivalent..

but i don't know what i'm doing wrong ! the end is always T "true" when i try to prove it logically...

There's a lot of simplification that you can do. For example, how can you rewrite (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r)?
 
  • #3
skiller
237
5


show that :
~p ^ (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) v (p ^ r) ≡ r

when i made the truth table of course they were equivalent..

but i don't know what i'm doing wrong ! the end is always T "true" when i try to prove it logically...


Please help !


What exactly do you mean by 'the end is always T "true" when i try to prove it logically...'?

Do you mean that the LHS becomes True once you've simplified it? If so, show us step by step how you got to that and someone will spot the error in your working.
 
  • #4
micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
22,129
3,302
What exactly do you mean by 'the end is always T "true" when i try to prove it logically...'?

Do you mean that the LHS becomes True once you've simplified it? If so, show us step by step how you got to that and someone will spot the error in your working.

Indeed. Please post your work or this thread will be deleted.
 
  • #5
Nuha22
2
0

Thank you all , but i have solved it ^^

~p ^ (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) v (p ^ r) ≡ r


1- rearrange it:

[~p ^ (p ^ r) ] v (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) ≡ r

[ (~p ^ p) ^ (~p ^ r) ] v (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) ≡ r

[F ^ (~p ^ r) ] v (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) ≡ r

F v (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) ≡ r

(~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) ≡ r

[ (~q ^ r) v q) ] ^ [ (~q ^ r) v r) ] ≡ r

(~q v q ) ^ ( r v q ) ^ ( ~q v r ) ^ ( r v r ) ≡ r

Put braces :

(~q v q ) ^ [ ( r v q ) ^ ( ~q v r ) ] ^ ( r v r ) ≡ r

* [ ( r v q ) ^ ( ~q v r ) ] ==> r v (q ^ ~q)

* ( r v r ) => r

T ^ [ r v (q ^ ~q) ] ^ r ≡ r

* (q ^ ~q) => F

T ^ r ^ r ≡ r

*( r ^ r) => r

T ^ r ≡ r

^^



Al7amdulillah <3
 
  • #6
skiller
237
5
Thank you all , but i have solved it ^^
I think you got lucky! :smile:

1- rearrange it:

[~p ^ (p ^ r) ] v (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) ≡ r
The first line in your "rearrangement" seems invalid to me but almost trivially causes your LHS to be equivalent to r.

The original LHS is:
~p ^ (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) v (p ^ r)

and your rearrangement is:
[~p ^ (p ^ r)] v (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r)

As (q ^ r) is common to both of these expressions, you are effectively saying that:
~p ^ (~q ^ r) v (p ^ r) ≡ [~p ^ (p ^ r)] v (~q ^ r)

which is NOT the case.

I'm actually having a hard time trying to object to your reasoning as each step is logically correct and equivalent to the previous one; it's just your initial rearrangement where I can't understand how you got to it!

It looks like you saw A ^ B v C v D and thought you could rearrange it to be [A ^ D] v B v C, which in general is not true. :smile:

(I may be making a complete fool of myself here if I've missed something obvious!)

The original LHS can actually be simplified to r in about 3 steps as Mark was hinting at earlier.
 
  • #7
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,010
969
The first part of your statement, "~p" says that p is false. That means that "p^r" is false so that statement reduces to "(~q^r)v(q^r)". If q is false, "q^r" is false so we must have "~q^r" and so r is true. If q is true, "~q^r" is false so we must have "q^r" and so r is true. In any case, r is true.
 
  • #8
skiller
237
5
The first part of your statement, "~p" says that p is false. That means that "p^r" is false so that statement reduces to "(~q^r)v(q^r)". If q is false, "q^r" is false so we must have "~q^r" and so r is true. If q is true, "~q^r" is false so we must have "q^r" and so r is true. In any case, r is true.
Maybe I'm being stupid, but this post makes no sense to me.

r isn't necessarily true or false. It's not a question of finding whether r is true or false; it's about proving that the LHS is equivalent to r.
 
  • #9
skiller
237
5
Maybe I'm being stupid, but this post makes no sense to me.

r isn't necessarily true or false. It's not a question of finding whether r is true or false; it's about proving that the LHS is equivalent to r.

Anyone?
 
  • #10
sankalpmittal
785
15
Anyone?

A pity , you fail to fathom still after such excellent hints. Do you know what <=> in Proposition means ? If I say , that p<=>q , then p<=>q = (p=>q)^(q=>p) = (~p+q)^(~q+p).

Use this theorem in your question and prove !! Well truth is easiest method , but if you are not satisfied then use conditional elimination , as I stated. Lets see what you get.

Do you know about tautology , contrapositive , converse , etc.. in propositional logic ?
 
  • #11
vela
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
15,514
2,159
It looks like you saw A ^ B v C v D and thought you could rearrange it to be [A ^ D] v B v C, which in general is not true. :smile:

(I may be making a complete fool of myself here if I've missed something obvious!)
You're right. Nuha22's solution is wrong for the reason you noted.
 
  • #12
skiller
237
5
A pity , you fail to fathom still after such excellent hints.
I think you may be confusing me with the OP (Nuha22), who hasn't responded for over a week, possibly still believing that he's "solved" it.

You're right. Nuha22's solution is wrong for the reason you noted.
Thanks. :smile:

But I'm still not sure what Ivy was getting at...
 
  • #13
sankalpmittal
785
15
I think you may be confusing me with the OP (Nuha22), who hasn't responded for over a week, possibly still believing that he's "solved" it.

Thanks. :smile:

But I'm still not sure what Ivy was getting at...

Yeah !! I mistaken you for OP , who was Nuha22 !! Silly me !! I apologize for that though. :smile:

And yes , you're right. Ivy's hint was slightly confusing and little hard to fathom. But he was right. And that's what I stated , in my previous post. Ivy was using "conditional elimination." If you prove the statement to be a tautology , not a contradiction , then indeed , the inference from the premises is derived.
 
  • #14
skiller
237
5
Yeah !! I mistaken you for OP , who was Nuha22 !! Silly me !! I apologize for that though. :smile:

And yes , you're right. Ivy's hint was slightly confusing and little hard to fathom. But he was right. And that's what I stated , in my previous post. Ivy was using "conditional elimination." If you prove the statement to be a tautology , not a contradiction , then indeed , the inference from the premises is derived.
I'm quite happy to be corrected, but I think Ivy is female.

I still don't understand what she or you mean. I don't mean to be any mathematical genius.

I'm sure I can solve the OP's problem, but Ivy's reasoning is a bit confusing to me.
 

Suggested for: Prove: ~p ^ (~q ^ r) v (q ^ r) v (p ^ r) ≡ r

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
29K
Top