- #1

John112

- 19

- 0

A: (p => ~q) ^ (p v q)

B: ~p v q

does A => B (A implies B) ?

does B => A ( B implies A) ?

I did the truth tables for each:

A => B:

http://www4c.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((p+=>+NOT+q)+AND+(p+OR+q))+=>+(NOT+p+OR+q)

B => A:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(NOT+p+OR+q)+=>+((p+=>+NOT+q)+AND+(p+OR+q))+.

for A to logically imply B or for B to logically imply A, does it need to be a tautology? Meaning if A=> B or B=> A , on the truth tables should it be All Ts? or should the final column of the truh table of A=> B or B => A resemble the truth table of an implication?

B: ~p v q

does A => B (A implies B) ?

does B => A ( B implies A) ?

I did the truth tables for each:

A => B:

http://www4c.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((p+=>+NOT+q)+AND+(p+OR+q))+=>+(NOT+p+OR+q)

B => A:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(NOT+p+OR+q)+=>+((p+=>+NOT+q)+AND+(p+OR+q))+.

for A to logically imply B or for B to logically imply A, does it need to be a tautology? Meaning if A=> B or B=> A , on the truth tables should it be All Ts? or should the final column of the truh table of A=> B or B => A resemble the truth table of an implication?

Last edited: