Changes

185 bytes added ,  22:38, 2 December 2008
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 &mdash; that is, "(x)" for "not x" &mdash; and simple concatenation for conjunction &mdash; "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 &mdash; that is, "(x)" for "not x" &mdash; and simple concatenation for conjunction &mdash; "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>
12,080

edits