Go Mavs!
p: My hair is brown.
q: My eyes are red.
Write the following in standard form:
p ∧ qUse letters and other symbols (~ , ∧,∨,→,↔,⟹,≡ ) to describe the following statements given:
p: John plays sports
q: Marc watches television.
John plays sports implies Marc watches television
Make the truth table for the following statement:
p → r
p → r |
T |
F |
T |
T |
True or False: A statement that is not a tautology must be a contradiction.
A car is blue.
p: My hair is brown.
q: My eyes are red.
Write the following in standard form:
(p ⟶ ~q)p: John plays sports
q: Marc watches television.
John does not play sports or Marc watches television
Make the truth table for the following statement:
(p ∧ ~r) → r
(p ∧ ~r) → r |
T |
F |
T |
T |
True or False: The negation of a tautology must be a contradiction.
If a number is odd, then the number is divisible by 3.
p: My hair is brown.
q: My eyes are red.
Write the following in standard form:
~(~p → q)p: John plays sports
q: Marc watches television.
John plays sports if and only if Marc does not watch television
Make the truth table for the following statement:
(p ∧ ~q ) → r
(p ∧ ~q) → r |
T |
T |
T |
F |
T |
T |
T |
T |
True or False: The conditional, if tautology then contradiction, is logically equivalent to the conjunction of a tautology and a contradiction.
The animal is a beagle implies the animal is a dog.
p: My hair is brown.
q: My eyes are red.
Write the following in standard form:
~(q ∨ ~p)p: John plays sports
q: Marc watches television.
If Marc watches television or John does not play sports, then Marc watches television.
Are the following logically equivalent?
p ∧ (q ∨ r) and (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
Is the following implication valid? Justify your answer (truth table).
[(p → q) ∧ ~q] ⟹ p ∨ q
No
(p → q) ∧ ~q] → p ∨ q |
T |
T |
T |
F |
T |
F |
F |
T |
p: My hair is brown.
q: My eyes are red.
Write the following in standard form:
~((p ⟶ ~q) ∨ q)p: John plays sports
q: Marc watches television.
John does not play sports
The conditional is logically equivalent to which of its variations?
Is the following implication valid? Justify your answer (truth table).
p ∧ (q ∨ r) ⟹ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
Yes
p ∧ (q ∨ r) → (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r) |
T |
T |
T |
T |
T |
T |
T |
T |