Ask your own question, for FREE!
Mathematics 9 Online
OpenStudy (anonymous):

Logic: Given ((p^¬q)v(¬p^q)) |- (p v q)

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Ah, with or without the truth table? And whats your take on how to begin?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

I'm pretty sure that truth tables are not allowed

OpenStudy (anonymous):

I've started by assuming ¬(p v q) and hoping to prove by contradiction (Reductio Ad Absurdum)

OpenStudy (anonymous):

any ideas?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

hmm, what is the |-?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

have you studied logic before?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

because if you've studied logic, then surely you should know what that symbol is...

OpenStudy (anonymous):

I have a general idea about logics, from digital electronics. This has to be similar right?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

not quite

OpenStudy (anonymous):

this is propositional logic

OpenStudy (anonymous):

is that a \bot?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

if it is, then this contradiction can be easily proved by truth table...

OpenStudy (anonymous):

truth tables not allowed

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Let be . Show that but that neither nor (Note: this question is using Propositional logic) My current attempt is this: 1. Given 2. Assume 3. Assume 4. Using "OR introduction" 5. Contradiction in lines 2 and 4 6. Derive using Reductio Ad Absurdum 7. Assume 8. Using "OR introduction" 9. Contradiction in lines 2 and 8 10. Derive using Reductio Ad Absurdum 11. Using "AND introduction"

OpenStudy (anonymous):

copy and paste?

Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!
Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!