# Proving equivalence of statements without using a truth table [closed]

How can I prove these statements without using a truth table?

$1.\quad (p \leftrightarrow q) \equiv (p \land q) \lor (\neg p \land \neg q)$

$2. \quad (p \land q \land r) \equiv \neg p \lor \neg q \lor \neg r$

$3.\quad p \land (p \lor r) \equiv p$

## closed as off-topic by Pragabhava, Davide Giraudo, Jean-Claude Arbaut, Daniel W. Farlow, ShaileshApr 15 '17 at 0:02

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Pragabhava, Davide Giraudo, Jean-Claude Arbaut, Daniel W. Farlow, Shailesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• You're looking for the symbol ⇔. Also, please use LaTeX. – DHMO Apr 14 '17 at 14:40
• @DHMO Actually, he is using LaTeX (or at least MathJax), but only on single symbols, not whole expressions. – Arthur Apr 14 '17 at 14:43
• @Arthur I only saw that after I clicked edit, so whatever. – DHMO Apr 14 '17 at 14:44
• Work with that on your own. If you were to narrow/edit your question post so that, indeed, only one question is asked, perhaps you'll get more help, – Namaste Apr 14 '17 at 14:51
• @DHMO You're right, of course. – Arthur Apr 14 '17 at 14:51

You've posted three separate questions in one question field.

So I will not answer them all. I will give hints for each:

$(1)\;$ Note that by definition, \begin{align} p\leftrightarrow q &\equiv (p\to q) \land (q \to p)\tag{Definition of biconditional}\\ \\ &\equiv (\lnot p \lor q) \land (\lnot q \lor p)\tag{implication} \end{align}

Use the distributive property (a couple of times, if needed) we can work to show it is equivalent to $$(p\land q) \lor (\lnot p \land \lnot q)$$ I'll let you take it from here.

$(2)\;$ Use DeMorgan's twice (and make use of the associative property), on $\neg (p \land q \land r),\,$ to show that is equivalent to $\;\neg p \lor \neg q \lor \neg r.$

\begin{align} \neg (p \land q \land r) &\equiv \lnot ((p\land q) \land r)\tag{associativity}\\ \\ &\equiv (\lnot (p\land q) \lor \lnot r) \tag{DeMorgan's}\\ \\ &\equiv (\lnot p \lor \lnot q)\lor \lnot r \tag{DeMorgan's again}\\ \\ &\equiv \lnot p \lor \lnot q \lor \lnot r\tag{associativity} \end{align}

$(3)\;$ use the distributive property on $\;p \land (p \lor r)\;$ to show it is equivalent to $\;p.$ \begin{align} p \land (p \lor r)&\equiv (p\land p) \lor (p \land r)\tag{distributive property}\\ \\ &\equiv p \lor (p\land r) \tag{Why is p\land p \equiv p?} \end{align}

I'll let you finish the proof for $(3)$.

• HJY: If you'd like me to check your work upon your completion of the proofs of $(1), (3),\,$ feel free to post your work, and I'll be happy to review it. – Namaste Apr 14 '17 at 15:46