Sentential logic exercise from 'How to Prove it - A Structured Approach'

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

This discussion revolves around an exercise from 'How to Prove it - A Structured Approach', specifically focusing on sentential logic and the application of various logical laws. Participants are exploring the transformation of logical formulas using established principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the challenge of transitioning between formulas using logical laws, with one noting the simplicity of constructing a truth table but struggling with the application of laws. Others share their attempts and suggest starting points for proving relationships between the given statements.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their experiences and approaches. Some have offered guidance on potential starting points, while others express uncertainty about the clarity of the exercise and the complexity of the transformations involved.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of specific logical laws that have been covered in the book, and participants are grappling with the expectations of the exercise, indicating a possible lack of clarity in the problem statement itself.

RUBSTEP
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



This is an exercise from 'How to Prove it - A Structured Approach' (Exercise 7a, page 54) . So far a a really great book.

b1ZOg.jpg


Homework Equations



The DeMorgan, Absorption, Idempotent, Double Negation, Commutative, Associative, Distributive, Tautology, Contradiction, Conditional and Contrapositive law is what the book has gone through so far.

The Attempt at a Solution



I have been banging my head at this for hours. Constructing a truth table is trivial. But i haven't been able to go from one formula to the other by use of the stated laws. All exercises up to this have just required a few applications of the laws. So all my attempts at solving this so far have been mostly pages of jumping between formulas using the applicable laws.

I really feel like I am missing something. So any help would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\varphi\rightarrow\psi Is introduced as an abbreviation for or shown to be equivalent to \neg\varphi v \psi earlier in that chapter, and \varphi\leftrightarrow\psi for (\varphi\rightarrow\psi) ^ (\psi\rightarrow\varphi), so what you have to show is that

(\negP v Q) ^ (\negQ v R) \Leftrightarrow (\negP v R) ^ (((P ^ Q) v (\negP ^ \negQ)) v ((R ^ Q) v (\negR ^ \negQ)))

Does that help?
 
Im sorry I've shouldve been more clear. That formula is what i have tried to get to but with no success.
 
yeah I remember doing this one. Velleman isn't too clear on what he wants. I made a table but that did seem a little too simple. I tried hard to try to transform that first part into the second part but it is quite tricky. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
 
I would start by assuming (P→Q) and (Q→R) and then try to prove the rest. I can get you started in this direction. For example,

Suppose P. Then Q. Then R. Thus, P→R.

Then show the disjunction with the bijections is true too and then the "backwards" direction of assuming RHS and proving LHS of the bijection that you're trying to establish.

(Didn't realize how old this thread is -_-)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K