| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
| | | | |
| | [http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6513648 Problem posted by Mike1234 on the Discrete Math List at the Math Forum]. | | [http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6513648 Problem posted by Mike1234 on the Discrete Math List at the Math Forum]. |
| | + | |
| | + | * Required to show that <math>\lnot (p \Leftrightarrow q)</math> is equivalent to <math>(\lnot q) \Leftrightarrow p.</math> |
| | | | |
| | ===Solution=== | | ===Solution=== |
| | | | |
| | [http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=6514666 Solution posted by Jon Awbrey, working in the medium of logical graphs]. | | [http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=6514666 Solution posted by Jon Awbrey, working in the medium of logical graphs]. |
| − |
| |
| − | Required to show: ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p.
| |
| | | | |
| | In logical graphs, the required equivalence looks like this: | | In logical graphs, the required equivalence looks like this: |
| Line 78: |
Line 78: |
| | Back to the initial problem: | | Back to the initial problem: |
| | | | |
| − | * Show that ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p. | + | * Show that <math>\lnot (p \Leftrightarrow q)</math> is equivalent to <math>(\lnot q) \Leftrightarrow p.</math> |
| | | | |
| | We can translate this into logical graphs by supposing that we have to express everything in terms of negation and conjunction, using parentheses for negation — that is, "(x)" for "not x" — and simple concatenation for conjunction — "xyz" or "x y z" for "x and y and z". | | We can translate this into logical graphs by supposing that we have to express everything in terms of negation and conjunction, using parentheses for negation — that is, "(x)" for "not x" — and simple concatenation for conjunction — "xyz" or "x y z" for "x and y and z". |
| Line 138: |
Line 138: |
| | Putting all the pieces together, the problem given amounts to proving the following equation, expressed in the forms of logical graphs and parenthetical parse strings, respectively: | | Putting all the pieces together, the problem given amounts to proving the following equation, expressed in the forms of logical graphs and parenthetical parse strings, respectively: |
| | | | |
| − | * Show that ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p. | + | * Show that <math>\lnot (p \Leftrightarrow q)</math> is equivalent to <math>(\lnot q) \Leftrightarrow p.</math> |
| | | | |
| | <pre> | | <pre> |