0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Taiga
Jordan
ProfessorAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Law of detachment?
Law of Detachment also known as Modus Ponens (MP) says that if p=>q is true and p is true, then q must be true. The Law of Syllogism is also called the Law of Transitivity and states: if p=>q and q=>r are both true, then p=>r is true.
What is the Law of detachment?
AnswerLaw of Detachment ( also known as Modus Ponens (MP) ) says that if p=>q is true and p is true, then q must be true.example:If an angle is obtuse, then it cannot be acute.Angle A is obtuse.ThereforeAngle A cannot be acute.The Law of Syllogism ( also called the Law of Transitivity ) states:if p=>q and q=>r are both true, then p=>r is true.example:If the electric power is cut, then the refrigerator does not work.If the refrigerator does not work, then the food is spoiled.So if the electric power is cut, then the food is spoiled.Law of Detachment also known as Modus Ponens (MP) says that if p=>q is true and p is true, then q must be true.The Law of Syllogism is also called the Law of Transitivity and states: if p=>q and q=>r are both true, then p=>r is true.In a nutshell, it's saying that if you have a conditional, and you have the antecedent, you then have the consequent. For example, we know that, "If it snows this winter, we will need to wear warm winter clothing outside." Suddenly it's mid-December and the forecast is snow. Therefore, it's probably the time to go shopping for winter clothes, if we don't already have any.
If P is true and Q is false what is the truth value of P or Q?
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:)
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)
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.
