Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

How do I prove this statement is a tautology, without using truth tables?

makoten · 2011-11-02 17:40:30

Only the laws can be used, no truth tables allowed. Prove the statement: ((p V q) ^ (p -> r) ^ (q -> r)) -> r is a tautology. I am genuinely stuck, even though the laws are right in front of me I don't know where to start!

02-11-2011 06:40PM

#1

makoten

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 138 ✭✭

Join Date: April 2010

Posts: 125

Only the laws can be used, no truth tables allowed.

Prove the statement:
((p V q) ^ (p -> r) ^ (q -> r)) -> r
is a tautology.

I am genuinely stuck, even though the laws are right in front of me I don't know where to start!

0

Comments

#2 03-11-2011 12:43AM

Fremen

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 2356

Maybe you should post up what laws you're allowed to use. My strategy would be to eliminate the -> signs by re-writing them as ANDs and ORs. Then use the fact that (p OR not p) is always true.

0