This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: T T * * * * 25 The conclusion is logically equivalent to r + p, so this is the same as Exercise 5(g), hence not valid. p: (j) Let p, q, and r be the statements q: r: The given argument is p+q ...,q pVr . r I like mathematics I study I like football. The first two premises give ...,p by modus tollens, so, since p V r is true, the conclusion follows by disjunctive syllogism. p: (k) Let p, q, and r be the statements q: r: qVr The given argument is r + p (...,q) + p qVr I like mathematics I study I like football. This is the same as ( ...,r) V p and hence valid by resolution. qVp...
View
Full
Document
This note was uploaded on 11/08/2010 for the course MATH discrete m taught by Professor Any during the Summer '10 term at FSU.
 Summer '10
 any
 Graph Theory

Click to edit the document details