If an algebraic expression is equivalent to another algebraic expression then it is an equation.
Answer this question… Historical claims that are logically and factually strong are said to have ________.
p --> q and q --> p are not equivalent p --> q and q --> (not)p are equivalent The truth table shows this. pq p --> q q -->(not)p f f t t f t t t t f f f t t t t
To enable them think logically, and be meticulous.
34
Add to these successions of numbers the number that logically follows: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5
A Contrapositive statement is logically equivalent.
An obverse statement is logically equivalent.
The statement "If not q, then not p" is logically equivalent to "If p, then q."
It means that you are cynic or tough as an egg.
Please watch your facial exprssions!
Contrapositive
a conditional and its contrapositive
This is not always true.
This would be logically equivalent to the conditional you started with.
Statements that are always logically equivalent are those that yield the same truth value in every possible scenario. Common examples include a statement and its contrapositive (e.g., "If P, then Q" is equivalent to "If not Q, then not P") and a statement and its double negation (e.g., "P" is equivalent to "not not P"). Additionally, the negation of a statement is logically equivalent to the statement's denial (e.g., "not P" is equivalent to "if not P, then false"). These equivalences play a crucial role in logical reasoning and proofs.
Logically equivalent statements are expressions or propositions that have the same truth value in every possible scenario. This means that if one statement is true, the other must also be true, and if one is false, the other must be false as well. For example, the statements "If P, then Q" and "If not Q, then not P" (contrapositive) are logically equivalent. Logical equivalence is often denoted using symbols such as "≡" or "⇔".
Two Venn diagrams are considered logically equivalent if they represent the same set relationships and overlap among the groups depicted. This means that the areas shaded in each diagram correspond to the same logical statements or conclusions about the sets involved. If the diagrams show different relationships or shading, they are not logically equivalent. Thus, the equivalence depends on the accuracy of their representation of the relationships between the sets.