Ask your own question, for FREE!
Mathematics 13 Online
OpenStudy (anonymous):

Need help with a discrete math problem.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Also, the periods at the beginning should be commas: Let P, Q, and R be....

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@DebbieG

OpenStudy (psymon):

I figure just try to do a truth table? You know the truth values for p implies q?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

I know the single arrow: --> means implies. Does the double arrow mean the same thing?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

But yeah, I know how to do a truth table for p implies q

OpenStudy (psymon):

It means if and only if and only if. You can think of it in two ways. Either it means that p implies q AND q implies p, or you can say that it means p and q are equal.

OpenStudy (psymon):

Oops *if and only if

OpenStudy (anonymous):

_______ right, but what do the arrows mean that are just pointing one direction but ------ have double lines like that.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

________ -------

OpenStudy (psymon):

The arrows literally are "implies" P implies Q = \[p \implies q\] P if and only if Q = \[p \iff q\]

OpenStudy (anonymous):

p q r p-->q p-->r T T T T T T F T F T F T T T T F F T T T T T F T F T F F F F F T F T T F F F F T

OpenStudy (psymon):

Lookin good. You might want to add a q --> p line

OpenStudy (anonymous):

I need to show that if p-->q and p-->r then q-->p So p-->q T T F T T T F T

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Does that show that because p-->q and p-->r that q-->p though?

OpenStudy (psymon):

Just use the same logic for q ----> p that you did for p --->q same rules apply. For all the rows in which both are true, you can conclude that p if and only if q is also true.

OpenStudy (debbieg):

Can probably do these by contradiction too? (I get the truth table approach, but I always find proof by contradiction feels more intuitive, lol). So for a: assume that P holds but not R. Since P holds and P->Q, Q holds. Since Q holds, and Q->R, R holds. But that is a contradiction. Therefore P cannot be true and not R be true; so P->R.

OpenStudy (psymon):

I think truth table is more introductory is all. I learned it before I even did anything with contradiction.

OpenStudy (debbieg):

Ah, gotcha. Well @bbkzr31, if the truth table is making sense to you then stick with it, ignore what I said. :) lol

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Yeah, I don't really understand contradiction yet, :/

OpenStudy (anonymous):

But how would I use the logic from p-->q to show that q-->p?

OpenStudy (psymon):

Well, p implies q means that we can only judge q if p is true. If p is false, we don't care, we can put p ---> q = true. Same thing for q ---> p. We only can judge p based on the truth of q. If q is false, q --->p is true since we have no way to judge p on an implication we didnt make.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Sort of makes sense

OpenStudy (anonymous):

so I put F whenever p is F for q-->p?

OpenStudy (psymon):

Only if q is true and p is false. If p is false then that's fine given q is false. We cant at all judge P without having Q be true.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Can you write the truth values for q-->p?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Wait, we want p-->r

OpenStudy (psymon):

But we also want p if and only if q, meaning at some point we care about q ---> p

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Is what I wrote so far correct?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Oh ok

OpenStudy (anonymous):

so we first get q-->p and from there we can figure out p-->r

OpenStudy (psymon):

So if we want to only look at p if and only if q p q p ----> q q----> p t t t t t f f t f t t f f f f f So in regards to p if and only if q, it only occurs when both are true or both are false. We can add on more for r, but we don't need to include r for this step.

OpenStudy (psymon):

I meant to put t t at the bottom line

OpenStudy (psymon):

f f t t my bad

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Ah ok, that makes sense

OpenStudy (anonymous):

So both are only true in two instances

OpenStudy (psymon):

Correct.

OpenStudy (psymon):

Both must be true or both must be false.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

so now we have to show that q-->r?

OpenStudy (psymon):

Right. So we can add on more values like you did before, the 8 combinations of true and false between p q r and use those to show p imp r, q imp r, etc.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

and then use those values to find p-->r

OpenStudy (psymon):

Right, usin gthe same kind of logic. We can't judge the truth of r unless is p is true. Therefore if p is false, we can automatically say p ---> r is true. Only if p is true and r is false can we say p ---> r is false. Same thing with q ---> r

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Ok, I'm gonna try to write it out real quick

OpenStudy (psymon):

alrighty.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

And...stuck on how to finish it :/

OpenStudy (psymon):

Sorry, I gotta head to class x_x Id help ya finish it if I could. Hope I guided ya somewhat, though.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

ah ok, well thanks for the help!

OpenStudy (psymon):

yeah ,np :3

OpenStudy (anonymous):

I will try to figure the rest out

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!