answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Prove: [ P -> Q AND R -> S AND (P OR R) ] -> (Q OR S) -> NOT, ---

1. P -> Q ___ hypothesis 2. R -> S ___ hypothesis 3. P OR R ___ hypothesis 4. ~P OR Q ___ implication from hyp 1. 5. ~R OR S ___ implication from hyp 2 6. ~P OR Q OR S ___ addition to 4. 7. ~R OR Q OR S ___ addition to 5. 8. Let T == (Q OR S) ___ substitution 9. (~P OR T) AND (~R OR T) ___ Conjunction 6,7 10. T OR (~P AND ~R) ___ Distribution from 9 11. T OR ~(P OR R) ___ De Morgan's theorem 12. Let M == (P OR R) ___ substitution

13. (T OR ~M) AND M ___ conjunction 11, hyp 3 From there, you can use distribution to get (T AND M) OR (~M AND M). The contradiction goes away leaving you with T AND M, which can simplify to T.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What is the proof of transitivity in logic NOT with truth table if p is q and if r is s and either p or r is true therefore either q or s is true?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about Other Math

What is the proof of constructive dilemma in logic NOT with truth table if p is q and if r is s and either p or r is true therefore either q or s is true?

Please use the discussion area to explain this fascinating question Constructive Dilemma Proof: 1. ( A -> B ) Premise 2. ( C -> D ) Premise 3. ( A or C ) Premise 4. ( - B -> - A ) 1 , Contraposition 5. ( - A -> C ) 3 , Implication 6. ( - B -> C ) 4 , 5 Chain Argument 7. ( - B -> D ) 6 , 2 Chain Argument 8. ( B or D ) 7 Implication , Q.E.D.


Is the square root of a 143 a irrational number?

Yes. The square root of a positive integer can ONLY be either:* An integer (in this case, it isn't), OR * An irrational number. The proof is basically the same as the proof used in high school algebra, to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational.


Is nsinn properly divergent?

No. The sequence (n*sin(n)) is not properly divergent. To be properly divergent it must either "tend to" +inf or -inf. We say that (xn) tends to +inf if for every real number a there exists a natural number N such that if n>=N, then xn>a. It is clear that no such N exists for all real numbers because n*sin(n) oscillates (because of the sin(n)). Therefore (n*sin(n)) is not properly divergent. This is not a rigorous proof but the definition of proper divergence is precise and can be used for any proof dealing with proper divergence.


What is another name for a proof of contradiction?

Proof by contradiction is also known by its Latin equivalent, reductio ad absurdum.


If whiskey is 90 proof what is the percentage?

45% The percentage of alcohol is always 1/2 of the proof.

Related questions

What is the name of the branch of math that has to do with reasoning and proof?

Mathematical logic and proof theory (a branch of mathematical logic) for proof


What can justify the steps of a proof?

Mathematical logic.


In a geometric proof what can be used to explain a statement?

Axioms and logic (and previously proved theorems).


An argument that uses logic to show that a conclusion is true?

Proof


Logic and formal proof in math have been in existence since the time of the ancient Greeks?

True or False. Logic and proof in math have been in existence sine the time of the ancient Greeks. true


Have logic and formal proof in math only been around for about 100 years?

no


Can you also prove that 1 equals 0?

In normal math, 1 is not equal to 0, so any "proof" that they are equal either uses non-standard definitions, or it is based on faulty logic.


Logic and formal proof in math have been around for over 2000 years?

true


What can you use to explain the statement in the geometric proof?

Yo could try using logic.


How long have logic and formal proof in math have been around for?

At least three thousand years.


Logic and formal proof in math have been around for over 2 000 years?

true


Is Logic and formal proof a recent mathematical development?

No, logic and formal proof have been integral parts of mathematics for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks, such as Euclid and Pythagoras, were known for their use of logical reasoning and formal proofs. However, the development of formal logic as a field of study did occur more recently in the 19th and 20th centuries.