1
$\begingroup$

(p ∨∼q) ∧ (∼p ∨∼q)

≡ (∼q ∨ p) ∧ (∼q ∨∼p)

by (a)

≡∼q ∨ (p ∧∼p)

by (b)

≡∼q ∨ c

by (c)

≡∼q

by (d)

Therefore, (p ∨∼q) ∧ (∼p ∨∼q) ≡∼q

  • c being a contradiction

What are the laws being used in each of the four steps?

Commutative, associative, distributive, identity, negation, double negative, idempotent, universal bound, de morgans, absorption or the negations of t and c.

Please help I have no idea were to start.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

For $(a)$ you have first used the fact that $\lor $ is commutative. In both brackets the expressions have first been changed to $( \lnot q \lor p)$ and $(\lnot q \lor \lnot p)$.

Then for $(b)$ the author has used the distribution law of the conjunction over the disjunction. That is, $ ( \lnot q \lor p) \land (\lnot q \lor \lnot p) \equiv ( \lnot q \lor (p \land \lnot p )) $

For $(c)$ the derivation should be obvious since $ (p \land \lnot p ) $ is a contradiction. All he has done is a substitution.

For $(d)$ I'm not sure how the book defines it. Sometimes this is used as one of the idempotent laws. But either way, you can write a small natural deduction proof to say that $ (p \lor c) \equiv p $. For the implication assume $ \lnot p$ and then arrive at a contradiction. For the reverse implication just use the introduction of a disjunction.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

(a) commutative

(b) distributive

(c) Law of (non-)contradiction (negated on both sides)

(d) identity

although some of these can be named differently depending on the author.

$\endgroup$

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.