Truth table and proving a tautology

  • Thread starter Thread starter arnold28
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Table Truth table
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the statement (p -> ((p OR q) AND ~q)) = ((~p OR ~q) AND p) as a tautology using a truth table. The truth table results show discrepancies, with the left side yielding values of 0, 1, 1, 1 and the right side yielding 0, 1, 0, 0, indicating that the statement is not a tautology. Participants question the correctness of the parentheses in the expression and whether the exercise might be poorly worded. The confusion stems from the differing outputs of both sides of the equation, leading to uncertainty about the validity of the original statement. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the statement does not hold as a tautology based on the truth table analysis.
arnold28
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'm supposed to prove that this statement is a tautology (with truth table):

(p -> ((p OR q) AND ~q)) = (~p OR ~q) AND p


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Code:
p | q | ~p | ~q | p OR q | (p OR q) AND ~q | p -> ((p OR q) AND ~q) | (~p OR ~q) | (~p OR ~q) AND p
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1   1    0    0      1            0                      0                 0               0
1   0    0    1      1            1                      1                 1               1
0   1    1    0      1            0                      1                 1               0
0   0    1    1      0            0                      1                 1               0

But here cleary is that it is not tautology, because left side of equation gets 0 1 1 1 and right side 0 1 0 0

So where did i make mistake, because i can't see it
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you have the parentheses right in the expression that is to be proven?
 
yes, it is just like that in the excercise paper
 
so do you think that I have done it right and the excercise is badly worded?
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top