Ask your own question, for FREE!
Mathematics 14 Online
OpenStudy (anonymous):

Let p and q represent the statements: p: Jose is running track. q: Jose is not winning the race. Express the following statement symbolically: Jose is winning the race..... a) p.. b) q.. c)~q.. d) ~p

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@jim_thompson5910 is this the same as the last ones?

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

q: Jose is not winning the race.

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

~q is the opposite of q

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

So if q says one thing then ~q (NOT q) says the complete opposite thing q says

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

so ~q is like saying Jose is NOT not winning the race ...a bit confusing, but the two "not"s cancel giving us ~q: Jose is winning the race

OpenStudy (anonymous):

so then its p?

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

p is the statement Jose is running track

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

agreed?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

yea

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

does that have anything to do with "Jose is winning the race" ?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

not really

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

so "Jose is winning the race" doesn't involve p at all

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

reread what I wrote at the beginning of this thread

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

and hopefully something will click

OpenStudy (anonymous):

q?

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

closer, but still no

OpenStudy (anonymous):

~q

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

you got it

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

look above to see why

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

I wrote it out at the top

OpenStudy (anonymous):

ohh i didnt even relize it, wow.... thank you so much, i also have 2 more, i have one that i really dont know

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

its ok, i was wondering about that lol

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Look at the argument below. Which of the following symbolic statements shows the set-up used to find the validity of the argument? If Mario studies hard, then he gets good grades. Mario got good grades. Therefore, Mario studied hard. p: Mario studies hard. q: Mario gets good grades

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

First off, is that argument valid?

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

oh wait, nvm they're asking a different question

OpenStudy (anonymous):

a.) [(p → q) ∧ ~q] .'.p b.)[(p → q) → q] ∴ p c.)[(p → q) ∧ q] ∴ q d.) [(p → q) ∧ q] ∴ p

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

hmm interesting way to put it

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

"If Mario studies hard, then he gets good grades." translates to ...???

OpenStudy (anonymous):

p?

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

p is just "Mario studies hard"

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

how do we incorporate the "he gets good grades" part?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

p -> q

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

good

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

"If Mario studies hard, then he gets good grades." translates to p -> q

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

now tack on the statement "Mario got good grades" So what does "If Mario studies hard, then he gets good grades. Mario got good grades. " translate to ???

OpenStudy (anonymous):

[(p → q) ∧ ~q] .'. p

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

not quite

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

~q means he did NOT get good grades, but it clearly says he did

OpenStudy (anonymous):

[(p → q) ∧ ~q] .'. p

OpenStudy (anonymous):

[(p->q) ^q] .'. p

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

better

OpenStudy (anonymous):

so is that it then?

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

yes it is

OpenStudy (anonymous):

oh ok, thanks, and this will be the last one i promise,: Which of the following is the equivalent of the inverse statement? a.) the negation of the statement.. b.) the converse of the statement.... c.)the contrapositive of the statement... d.)the conditional statement

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

In general Original = contrapositive and inverse = converse

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

So it's b)

jimthompson5910 (jim_thompson5910):

the inverse of p -> q is ~p -> ~q -------------- that's equivalent to ~~q -> ~~p which is the same as q -> p but this is the converse So this shows that the inverse and the converse represent the same thing

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!