3
$\begingroup$

I have the standard logical equivalence: $(p\rightarrow q)\wedge(q\rightarrow r)\Leftrightarrow p\rightarrow (q\wedge r)$.

Using several distributive laws I was able to get it down to: $(\neg p\wedge\neg q) \vee (\neg p\wedge r) \vee (q\wedge r)$.

I must be missing some manipulation I can do to reduce this.

  • 0
    Where did you start, where were you trying to get? "Get it down"... get *what* down?2010-09-23
  • 0
    Well first I got rid of the conditionals by the definition of implication and then I was left with the two compound disjunctive statements with the "and" separating them. I then used distributive law twice and got to the point I stated above. What I meant by get down was that I was trying to get the compound proposition into a form so that I could conclude it was equivalent to the right side.2010-09-23
  • 2
    How about a truth table? That would be the simplest thing to do, I think.2010-09-23
  • 0
    Well I could and I have but the point is more to use logical equivalences.2010-09-23
  • 2
    I haven't worked through the details, but it strikes me that this statement is not correct. Change the bidirectional implication to a simple implication, and it holds, however.2010-09-24
  • 2
    @Noldorin: Yes, they are not equivalent. See my answer.2010-09-24
  • 1
    It seems clear to me that it should have been $(p\rightarrow q)\wedge (p\rightarrow r)$ on the right hand side. I checked to make sure it wasn't me who introduced the mistake when I edited the question, and it was incorrect in the original.2010-09-24
  • 0
    on second thought, for equlivalance your question should be $[(p\Rightarrow q)\wedge(q\Rightarrow r)\Leftrightarrow p]\Rightarrow (q\wedge r)$2013-09-08

2 Answers 2