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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion revolves around Exercise 7a from 'How to Prove It - A Structured Approach', focusing on the application of logical laws to transform complex formulas. The participant struggles with using DeMorgan's, Absorption, and other logical laws to derive the equivalence between two expressions: (\negP v Q) ^ (\negQ v R) and (\negP v R) ^ (((P ^ Q) v (\negP ^ \negQ)) v ((R ^ Q) v (\negR ^ \negQ)). The advice provided emphasizes starting with assumptions (P→Q) and (Q→R) to facilitate the proof process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of sentential logic and its laws, including DeMorgan's and Absorption laws.
  • Familiarity with truth tables and their construction.
  • Knowledge of logical equivalences and implications.
  • Experience with formal proof techniques in mathematical logic.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of DeMorgan's laws in logical proofs.
  • Practice constructing truth tables for complex logical expressions.
  • Explore the implications of conditional and contrapositive laws in proofs.
  • Review examples of logical equivalences in 'How to Prove It - A Structured Approach'.
USEFUL FOR

Students of logic, mathematics, and computer science, particularly those working on formal proofs and logical equivalences in sentential logic.

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