0
Making a truth table is actually very simple.
For the statement P, it can either be true, or false.
P
--
T
F
NOT 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 this
P | ~p
--------
T | F
F | T
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Make a truth table for the statement if p then not q?
. p . . . . . q. 0 . . . . . 1. 1 . . . . . 0
How do you construct a truth table for p arrow q and p arrow -q. Also do truth tables differ depending on the statement?
Statements mean nothing to the validity of truth tables. However p and q must be statements - something that can be declared true or false. Example: a statement could be "There are clouds in the sky over my head right now." A statement could not be "A cloudy day is dreary" -- that is subjective (maybe true to you but not necessarily to me). That said the truth tables look at comparing all possible combinations of truth values for both statements: p could be true and q could be true, or p could be true and q could be false, or p could be false and q could be true, or p could be false and q could be false. Then you can look at the if p then q (p arrow q) truth values. Consider the If-then statements most teens hear: If you clean your room, then you can take the car out on Friday. The Parent is considered lying if they don't let you take the car out even though you cleaned your room. If you don't clean your room, the "then" part of the conditional statement does not matter -- logically then if p is not true, the conditional is considered true regardless of the value of q. table looks like p | q | p -> q T | T | T (you clean your room and you do get to take the car on Friday) T | F | F (you clean your room and you don't get to take the car on Friday) F | T | T (you don't clean your room - the rest doesn't matter) F | F | T The table for p begets not q is almost the same. Start with the same two first columns, add a column for not q (~q); then add a column to evaluate the conditional. Only this time your parent said something like "If you fail your Geometry quiz, then you can NOT go to the party on Saturday". They only lied to you if you failed your quiz and they still let you go to the party.
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 truth table for p or q and the opposite of p and q?
P . . Q . . (P or Q)0 . . 0 . . . 00 . . 1 . . . 11 . . 0 . . . 11 . . 1 . . . 1=================P . . Q . . NOT(P and Q)0 . . 0 . . . . 10 . . 1 . . . . 11 . . 0 . . . . 11 . . 1 . . . . 0
If p q and q r then p r. Converse statement B.A syllogism C.Contrapositive statement D.Inverse statement?
Converse: If p r then p q and q rContrapositive: If not p r then not (p q and q r) = If not p r then not p q or not q r Inverse: If not p q and q r then not p r = If not p q or not q r then not p r
Construct a truth table for p and q if and only if not q?
Construct a truth table for ~q (p q)
Make a truth table for the statement if p then not q?
. p . . . . . q. 0 . . . . . 1. 1 . . . . . 0
How do you construct a truth table for or p or q?
___p_|_t_|_f_| q__t_|_t_|_t_| ___f_|_t_|_f_|
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 is the correct truth table for p V -q?
what is the correct truth table for p V~ q
Difference between excitation table and truth table?
truth table gives relation between i/p & o/p. excitation table is use for design of ff & counters.
what is the correct truth table for -p-> -q?
A+
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
is this statement true of false if point P is not on line L, the rhombus method can be used to construct a line M that is parallel to line L through P.?
true
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.
How do you construct a truth table for p arrow q and p arrow -q. Also do truth tables differ depending on the statement?
Statements mean nothing to the validity of truth tables. However p and q must be statements - something that can be declared true or false. Example: a statement could be "There are clouds in the sky over my head right now." A statement could not be "A cloudy day is dreary" -- that is subjective (maybe true to you but not necessarily to me). That said the truth tables look at comparing all possible combinations of truth values for both statements: p could be true and q could be true, or p could be true and q could be false, or p could be false and q could be true, or p could be false and q could be false. Then you can look at the if p then q (p arrow q) truth values. Consider the If-then statements most teens hear: If you clean your room, then you can take the car out on Friday. The Parent is considered lying if they don't let you take the car out even though you cleaned your room. If you don't clean your room, the "then" part of the conditional statement does not matter -- logically then if p is not true, the conditional is considered true regardless of the value of q. table looks like p | q | p -> q T | T | T (you clean your room and you do get to take the car on Friday) T | F | F (you clean your room and you don't get to take the car on Friday) F | T | T (you don't clean your room - the rest doesn't matter) F | F | T The table for p begets not q is almost the same. Start with the same two first columns, add a column for not q (~q); then add a column to evaluate the conditional. Only this time your parent said something like "If you fail your Geometry quiz, then you can NOT go to the party on Saturday". They only lied to you if you failed your quiz and they still let you go to the party.
What is the proof of the modus ponens not by the truth table?
1)p->q 2)not p or q 3)p 4)not p and p or q 5)contrudiction or q 6)q
