0
If p is true and q is false, p or q would be true. I had a hard time with this too but truth tables help. When using P V Q aka p or q, all you need is for one of the answers to be true. Since p is true P V Q would also be true:)
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Monnie Christopher
N
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the proof for P and Not P Therefore Q?
"P and not P" is always false. If P is true, not P is false; if P is false, not P is true. In either case, combining a true and a false with the AND operator gives you false. And if you look at the truth table for the implication (the "therefore" part), when the left part is false, the result is always true.
True or false When the polynomial in P(x) is divided by (x-a) the remainder equals P(a)?
False (apex)
A number A is a root of P(x) if and only if the remainder when dividing the polynomial by x plus a equals zero True or false?
True-APEX
Is not p and q equivalent to not p and not q?
Think of 'not' as being an inverse. Not 1 = 0. Not 0 = 1. Using boolean algebra we can look at your question. 'and' is a test. It wants to know if BOTH P and Q are the same and if they are 1 (true). If they are not the same, or they are both 0, then the result is false or 0. not P and Q is rewritten like so: (P and Q)' = X not P and not Q is rewritten like: P' and Q' = X (the apostrophe is used for not) We will construct a truth table for each and compare the output. If the output is the same, then you have found your equivalency. Otherwise, they are not equivalent. P and Q are the inputs and X is the output. P Q | X P Q | X ------ 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 1 0 1 | 1 0 1 | 0 1 0 | 1 1 0 | 0 1 1 | 0 1 1 | 0 Since the truth tables are not equal, not P and Q is not equivalent to not P and not Q. Perhaps you meant "Is NOT(P AND Q) equivalent to NOT(P) AND NOT(Q)?" NOT(P AND Q) can be thought of intuitively as "Not both P and Q." Which if you think about, you can see that it would be true if something were P but not Q, Q but not P, and neither P nor Q-- so long as they're not both true at the same time. Now, "NOT(P) AND NOT(Q)" is clearly _only_ true when BOTH P and Q are false. So there are cases where NOT(P AND Q) is true but NOT(P) AND NOT(Q) is false (an example would be True(P) and False(Q)). NOT(P AND Q) does have an equivalence however, according to De Morgan's Law. The NOT can be distributed, but in doing so we have to change the "AND" to an "OR". NOT(P AND Q) is equivalent to NOT(P) OR NOT(Q)
Construct a truth table for p and q if and only if not q?
Construct a truth table for ~q (p q)
If p is true and q is false what is the truth value or p or q?
true or false = true
How do you construct a truth table for parenthesis not p q parenthesis if and only if p?
Assuming that you mean not (p or q) if and only if P ~(PVQ)--> P so now construct a truth table, (just place it vertical since i cannot place it vertical through here.) P True True False False Q True False True False (PVQ) True True True False ~(PVQ) False False False True ~(PVQ)-->P True True True False if it's ~(P^Q) -->P then it's, P True True False False Q True False True False (P^Q) True False False False ~(P^Q) False True True True ~(P^Q)-->P True True False False
What is the truth table for p arrow q?
Not sure I can do a table here but: P True, Q True then P -> Q True P True, Q False then P -> Q False P False, Q True then P -> Q True P False, Q False then P -> Q True It is the same as not(P) OR Q
What is the proof for P and Not P Therefore Q?
"P and not P" is always false. If P is true, not P is false; if P is false, not P is true. In either case, combining a true and a false with the AND operator gives you false. And if you look at the truth table for the implication (the "therefore" part), when the left part is false, the result is always true.
Construct a Truth Table for the statement NOT p - p?
Making a truth table is actually very simple.For the statement P, it can either be true, or false.P--TFNOT P, or -p (or ~p) is the opposite. If P is true, then not P is... false!The same holds true for if P is false, what is not P? True!The truth table for ~p looks like thisP | ~p--------T | FF | T
What are the truth value of the sentence P v P?
True
How do you construct a truth table for q arrow p?
I guess you mean q → p (as in the logic operator: q implies p).To create this truth table, you run over all truth values for q and p (that is whether each statement is True or False) and calculate the value of the operator. You can use True/False, T/F, 1/0, √/X, etc as long as you are consistent for the symbol used for True and the symbol used for False (the first 3 suggestions given are the usual ones used).For implies:if you have a true statement, then it can only imply a true statement to be truebut a negative statement can imply either a true statement or a false one to be truegiving:. q . . p . q→p--------------. 0 . . 0 . . 1 .. 0 . . 1 . . 1 .. 1 . . 0 . . 0 .. 1 . . 1 . . 1 .
What type of operator can be used to determine whether a specific relationship that exists between two values?
The relational operators: ==, !=, =.p == q; // evaluates true if the value of p and q are equal, false otherwise.p != q; // evaluates true of the value of p and q are not equal, false otherwise.p < q; // evaluates true if the value of p is less than q, false otherwise.p q; // evaluates true if the value of p is greater than q, false otherwise.p >= q; // evaluates true of the value of p is greater than or equal to q, false otherwiseNote that all of these expressions can be expressed logically in terms of the less than operator alone:p == q is the same as NOT (p < q) AND NOT (q < p)p != q is the same as (p < q) OR (q < p)p < q is the same as p < q (obviously)p q is the same as (q < p)p >= q is the same as NOT (p < q)
Is the sentence 'this statement is false' true or false?
Liar's Paradox:"This statement is false." is known as a liar's paradox. It is an illustration of inherent flaws in logic. Another example of a liar's paradox is: "The next statement is false. The previous statement is true." Why it is a paradoxIt is contradictory. If we say the statement is true, then this statement would have to be false since it was true. If we say it the statement is false, it will make the statement itself true, as that is false.Example in Popular CultureThe liar's paradox can be found in an episode of Star Trek where Captain Kirk defeats a "superior" computer by introducing a logic loop similar to the question's liar paradox. (Kirk: "Everything Mudd says is a lie." Harry Mudd : "I am lying.")LanguageIn semantics there is the issue of truth condition, where the meaning of a sentence is conveyed if the truth conditions for the sentence are understood. A truth condition is what makes for the truth of a statement in an inductive definition of truth. The semantic theory of truth was developed from the work of a Polish logician named Alfred Tarski who attempted to formulate a new theory of truth in order to solve the liars paradox. In doing so, Tarski developed the indefinability theorem, similar to Godel's incompleteness theorem. The Theory that the concept of truth for the sentences of language cannot be consistently defined within that language means that such paradoxes as "This statement is false" do not reveal the truth or falsity of the sentence by the words that have been used.Solution to the paradoxLet us consider "This statement is false." This quotation could also be read as "This, which is a statement, is false," which could by extent be read as "This is a statement and it is false." Let's call this quotation P. The statement that P is a statement will be called Q. If S, then R and S equals R; therefore, if Q, then P equals not-P (since it equals Q and not-P). Since P cannot equal not-P, we know that Q is false. Since Q is false, P is not a statement. Since P says that it is a statement, which is false, P itself is false. Note that being false does not make P a statement; all things that are statements are true or false, but it is not necessarily true that all things that are true or false are statements.In summary: "this statement is false" is false because it says it's a statement but it isn't.
Is not q then not p true or false?
false
What is a trivial truth?
A trivial truth is a term used for an implication that is true for all cases, regardless of what implies it. That is, a statement in the form "If P then Q" is trivially true when Q is always true, regardless of P. eg. the statement "If x < -3, then x^2+1 > 0" is trivially true, because no matter the truth outcome of x<-3 (which could be true or false depending on the value of x), x^2+1 will always be greater than zero, as x^2 will always be greater than or equal to zero.
True or false When the polynomial in P(x) is divided by (x-a) the remainder equals P(a)?
False (apex)
