Need help with a discrete math problem.
Also, the periods at the beginning should be commas: Let P, Q, and R be....
@DebbieG
I figure just try to do a truth table? You know the truth values for p implies q?
I know the single arrow: --> means implies. Does the double arrow mean the same thing?
But yeah, I know how to do a truth table for p implies q
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.
Oops *if and only if
_______ right, but what do the arrows mean that are just pointing one direction but ------ have double lines like that.
________ -------
The arrows literally are "implies" P implies Q = \[p \implies q\] P if and only if Q = \[p \iff q\]
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
Lookin good. You might want to add a q --> p line
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
Does that show that because p-->q and p-->r that q-->p though?
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.
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.
I think truth table is more introductory is all. I learned it before I even did anything with contradiction.
Ah, gotcha. Well @bbkzr31, if the truth table is making sense to you then stick with it, ignore what I said. :) lol
Yeah, I don't really understand contradiction yet, :/
But how would I use the logic from p-->q to show that q-->p?
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.
Sort of makes sense
so I put F whenever p is F for q-->p?
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.
Can you write the truth values for q-->p?
Wait, we want p-->r
But we also want p if and only if q, meaning at some point we care about q ---> p
Is what I wrote so far correct?
Oh ok
so we first get q-->p and from there we can figure out p-->r
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.
I meant to put t t at the bottom line
f f t t my bad
Ah ok, that makes sense
So both are only true in two instances
Correct.
Both must be true or both must be false.
so now we have to show that q-->r?
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.
and then use those values to find p-->r
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
Ok, I'm gonna try to write it out real quick
alrighty.
And...stuck on how to finish it :/
Sorry, I gotta head to class x_x Id help ya finish it if I could. Hope I guided ya somewhat, though.
ah ok, well thanks for the help!
yeah ,np :3
I will try to figure the rest out
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!