Given the expression:

(p $\implies$ q) $\wedge$ (q $\implies$ r)

I got rid of the implication to get:

(¬p $\vee$ q) $\wedge$ (¬q $\vee$ r)

I first drew 2 venn diagrams, the left hand side of the conjunction symbol then the right.

There are three sets, when I draw the 2 separately, do I draw just two circles, and then combine the two? Or do I start by drawing 3 circles, even though one set is not in the other?

If I draw the venn diagrams for both sides just using two circles, and then combine the two, I get a venn diagram with where everything outside the 3 sets are shaded. But if I started off with 3 circles, and then combine them due to the conjunction symbol, I get everything outside the 3 sets shaded and the part where all three sets share a common area.

Which one is correct?



1 Answer 1


Suggestion for simplification:

An implication $p \rightarrow q$ is analogous to the set containment $P \subseteq Q$. It tells us nothing about any arbitrary element $x$, except that if $x \in P$, then $x\in Q$. Similarly, $q \rightarrow r$ is analogous to the set containment $Q \subseteq R$. So if $x \in Q$, then $x\in R$.

So you have three concentric circles, $p$ inside $q$ inside $r$ (nested), depicting $P \subseteq Q \subseteq R$. They may very well be the same circle, but none of p can be outside q, and none of q can be outside r. Nothing need be shaded. We are only given enough information to draw how the circles (sets) of the Venn Diagram are related.

That's it.

  • $\begingroup$ Not sure why no TU, problem solved. +1 $\endgroup$
    – Amzoti
    Oct 20, 2013 at 12:22

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.