0
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 true
- but a negative statement can imply either a true statement or a false one to be true
giving:
. q . . p . q→p
--------------
. 0 . . 0 . . 1 .
. 0 . . 1 . . 1 .
. 1 . . 0 . . 0 .
. 1 . . 1 . . 1 .
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
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 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
What are the truth value of the sentence P v P?
True
What is the truth table for p and negation q?
P | T T F F Q | T F T F Q' | F T F T P + Q' | F T F F The layout is the best I could do with this software. Hope it is OK.
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
Construct a truth table for p and q if and only if not q?
Construct a truth table for ~q (p q)
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
How do you construct a truth table for or p or q?
___p_|_t_|_f_| q__t_|_t_|_t_| ___f_|_t_|_f_|
what is the correct truth table for p V -q?
what is the correct truth table for p V~ q
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
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
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 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
What is the truth table for negation p or negation q?
P Q (/P or /Q) T T F T F T F T T F F T
