Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Someone wanna check my logic?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,155
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    42 Post(s)

    Default Someone wanna check my logic?

    I had a quiz today. Can someone check my answers? I got all false?

    1. p -> (q->r) = p -> (q^r)
    I got these are not equivalent

    2. (p -> q) V (~p -> q) = q

    I go this to be false, I actually got a tautology


    Are these correct?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not here.
    Posts
    5,422
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    242 Post(s)

    Default

    1. correct
    2. i would say true. the value of p doesn't matter, so the determining predicate is q.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Future.
    Posts
    5,600
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1598 Post(s)

    Default

    I got true for the first one :S
    I thought of it like this:

    If a = b = c then a = both b and c since they are equivalent.. no?

    if water is near then
    if mosquitoes are around then
    eggs are laid.

    ==

    if water is near then
    mosquitoes are around and eggs are laid.

    I guess it could be false since the egg laying depends on whether or not mosquitoes are around. It's hard for me because it doesn't say IFF (If and Only If) mosquitoes are around.

    God I hate this stuff..



    For the second one, I thought of it like this:

    If the gloves fit(p), the jury will acquit (q)) or (If they don't fit(p) the jury will acquit (q)) = the jury will acquit(q).

    In either case, the jury acquits (q). So the statement is true. It doesn't matter if the gloves fit (p) or not, the jury acquits(q).
    Last edited by Brandon; 02-14-2015 at 07:33 AM.
    I am Ggzz..
    Hackintosher

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Quoted
    145 Post(s)

    Default

    When in doubt, draw truth tables. That's like step one propositional logic debugging, right?

    Code:
    p	q	r	(p -> (q -> r))	(p -> (q ^ r))
    0	0	0	1		1
    0	0	1	1		1
    0	1	0	1		1
    0	1	1	1		1
    1	0	0	1		0
    1	0	1	1		0
    1	1	0	0		0
    1	1	1	1		1
    
    
    p	q	((p -> q) v (~p -> q))
    0	0	1
    0	1	1
    1	0	1
    1	1	1
    tl;dr: You got both answers correct (false, false), and correctly identified 2 as a tautology.
    Last edited by core; 02-14-2015 at 08:38 AM.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    Stance on Leechers

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •