0
$\begingroup$

I am taking a discrete mathematics course and one of the questions asks to develop an English translation of a proposition.

The proposition has the following structure [Question 9 part H is where I am having issues]:

Here is an image of the question.

I posted the question on the course's Piazza page and a student answered this:

¬p∧(p∨¬q) {My original proposition}
≡
(¬p∧p)∨(¬p∧¬q)

Then saying:

(¬p∧p)∨(¬p∧¬q)
=
(p∨¬q) {The proposition that the student claims is == my original proposition.}

Obviously (p∨¬q) would be simpler to put in words than ¬p∧(p∨¬q). Finding an English statement for ¬p∧(p∨¬q) would be difficult as compared to (p∨¬q).

Is this true? And if so, why?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Swimming at the North Shire is not allowed [$\lnot p$] and (either Swimming at the North Shire is allowed or Sharks have not been spotted near the shore [$p \lor \lnot q$])

is quite "impossible" as an English (or other natural language) sentence.

Thus, if tautological transformations (truth equivalence) are allowed, it is correct that (by Distributivity):

$\lnot p \land (p \lor \lnot q)$

is equivalent to :

$(\lnot p \land p) \lor (\lnot p \land \lnot q)$.

Now (see : Table of Logical Equivalences) :

$\lnot p \land p \equiv FALSE$

and :

$FALSE \lor \alpha \equiv \alpha$.

Thus, the complete formula is equivalent to :

$\lnot p \land \lnot q$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.