MHB Create a Truth Table: (p ^ q) ->(p ▼ ~q)

  • Thread starter Thread starter rymatson406
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Table Truth table
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on creating a truth table for the logical expression (p ∧ q) → (p ∨ ¬q). Participants clarify that the truth table should have six columns, with the first two representing the values of p and q. The suggested rows for p and q are T T, T F, F T, and F F, leading to the calculation of ¬q, p ∧ q, p ∨ ¬q, and the final expression (p ∧ q) → (p ∨ ¬q). The completion of the truth table is emphasized as a helpful exercise for understanding logical implications. The conversation highlights the importance of including intermediate steps for clarity in logical reasoning.
rymatson406
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
(p ^ q) ->(p ▼ ~q)

Need help creating a truth table (6 columns) for the above.Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I assume the formula is $(p\land q)\to(p\lor \neg q)$.

Have you seen examples of creating a truth table? Can you write a truth table for $p\land q$, which is a part of the required truth table? What exactly is your difficulty?
 
Presumably your first two columns are for $p$ and $q$, which have two possible values each, making the table of necessity four rows "deep". I would go with:

T T
T F
F T
F F

for the first two columns (but other row-orders are possible).

It's hard to say what the next four columns are supposed to be, my guess is:

$\neg q,\ p \wedge q,\ p \vee \neg q$ and $(p \wedge q) \rightarrow (p \vee \neg q)$.

Really, only the last one is "necessary", but it's easier on the ol' noggin to include the other 3.
 
Hello, rymatson406!

Create a truth table for: .(p \wedge q)\;\to\;(p \,\vee \sim q)
. . . . \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} <br /> p &amp; q &amp; (p &amp; \wedge &amp; q) &amp; \to &amp; (p &amp; \vee &amp; \sim q) \\ \hline<br /> T&amp;T &amp; T&amp;T&amp;T &amp;T&amp; T&amp;T&amp;F \\<br /> T&amp;F &amp;T&amp;F&amp;F &amp;T&amp; T&amp;T&amp;T \\<br /> F&amp;T &amp;F&amp;F&amp;T &amp;T&amp; F&amp;F&amp;F \\<br /> F&amp;F &amp; F&amp;F&amp;F &amp;T&amp; F&amp;T&amp;T \\ \hline<br /> &amp;&amp; 1&amp;2&amp;1&amp;3&amp;1&amp;2&amp;1 \\ \hline \end{array}**
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top