MHB Trouble determining truth value of logic statements

  • Thread starter Thread starter chelseajjc95
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Value
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on evaluating the truth values of two logical statements under specific assumptions where a and b are true, while c and d are false. The first statement, "not(a V b) -> s", evaluates to true, confirming the user's initial assessment. The second statement, "r -> [(d -> w) <-> (a ^ c)]", lacks a definitive truth value due to the unknown value of r, which leads to a conclusion that the original formula does not have a definite truth value under the given assumptions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propositional logic
  • Familiarity with logical operators such as conjunction (^) and disjunction (V)
  • Knowledge of truth tables and their construction
  • Ability to evaluate implications and biconditionals in logic
NEXT STEPS
  • Study truth tables for complex logical expressions
  • Learn about logical equivalences and their applications
  • Explore the implications of unknown variables in logical statements
  • Review the principles of propositional calculus
USEFUL FOR

Students of logic, educators teaching propositional logic, and anyone interested in understanding the evaluation of logical statements and their truth values.

chelseajjc95
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
For the folowing two problems determine the truth value of each statement:
assume a and b are true and c and d are false.

not(a V b) -> s
not( T V T) -> s
F -> s
T

r -> [(d -> w) <-> (a ^ c )]
r -> [(F -> w) <-> ( T ^ F)]
r -> [T <-> F]
r -> F

I am fairly certain I did the first one correct but I would like some confirmation. The second one I am unsure how to evaluate
because the value of r is unknown and if r is t then the statement will be false but if r is false then the statement will be true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are right: $r\to [(d\to w) \leftrightarrow (a\land c )]$ is equivalent to $\neg r$ under the assumptions about $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$, so the original formula does not have a definite truth value.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K