0% found this document useful (0 votes)
3 views7 pages

Complete Solutions Discrete Math

The document provides a complete solution to various mathematical questions, including determining the tautology of a proposition, logical equivalence of expressions, and proofs related to set theory and properties of integers. It includes detailed step-by-step explanations for each question, demonstrating the reasoning and calculations involved. The answers to the questions are clearly stated at the end of each section.

Uploaded by

moha.abbas444
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
3 views7 pages

Complete Solutions Discrete Math

The document provides a complete solution to various mathematical questions, including determining the tautology of a proposition, logical equivalence of expressions, and proofs related to set theory and properties of integers. It includes detailed step-by-step explanations for each question, demonstrating the reasoning and calculations involved. The answers to the questions are clearly stated at the end of each section.

Uploaded by

moha.abbas444
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Here is the complete solution to all questions, rewritten from scratch in English, with a

different step-by-step approach and detailed explanations.

---

Q−1: [8 marks]

a) [3 marks] Determine whether the following proposition is a tautology:

\bigg( \Big( (x \vee y) \wedge (x \to z) \Big) \wedge (y \to z) \bigg) \to z

Step 1: Rewrite implications using \neg and \vee.

We know p \to q \equiv \neg p \vee q.

So:

x \to z \equiv \neg x \vee z,\qquad y \to z \equiv \neg y \vee z

Step 2: Combine (x \to z) \wedge (y \to z).

(\neg x \vee z) \wedge (\neg y \vee z) \equiv (\neg x \wedge \neg y) \vee z

Using De Morgan: \neg x \wedge \neg y \equiv \neg (x \vee y).

Thus:

(\neg x \vee z) \wedge (\neg y \vee z) \equiv \neg (x \vee y) \vee z \equiv (x \vee y) \to z
Step 3: Substitute back into the original proposition.

The proposition becomes:

\bigg( (x \vee y) \wedge \big( (x \vee y) \to z \big) \bigg) \to z

Step 4: Let p = x \vee y.

Then we have (p \wedge (p \to z)) \to z.

But p \wedge (p \to z) \equiv p \wedge (\neg p \vee z) \equiv (p \wedge \neg p) \vee (p \
wedge z) \equiv F \vee (p \wedge z) \equiv p \wedge z.

Step 5: The proposition simplifies to (p \wedge z) \to z.

This is always true because (A \wedge B) \to B is a tautology.

Answer: The proposition is a tautology.

---

b) [2 marks] Determine whether p \leftrightarrow q and (\neg p \wedge \neg q) \vee (p \


wedge q) are logically equivalent (without truth tables).

Step 1: Start with p \leftrightarrow q.

p \leftrightarrow q \equiv (p \to q) \wedge (q \to p) \equiv (\neg p \vee q) \wedge (\neg q
\vee p)

Step 2: Interpret the meaning.

The expression (\neg p \vee q) \wedge (\neg q \vee p) says:


· If p is true, then \neg p \vee q requires q to be true.

· If p is false, then \neg q \vee p requires \neg q to be true, i.e., q false.

So p and q are either both true or both false. That is exactly:

(p \wedge q) \vee (\neg p \wedge \neg q)

Answer: Yes, they are logically equivalent.

---

c) [1+1+1 marks] True or False with justification.

i. \forall n \in \mathbb{Z}^+,\; n^2 + n + 41 \text{ is prime}

· Check small values:

n = 1: 1 + 1 + 41 = 43 prime.

n = 2: 4 + 2 + 41 = 47 prime.

It works for n = 0 to 39, but fails at n = 40:

40^2 + 40 + 41 = 1600 + 40 + 41 = 1681 = 41^2

· Answer: False

ii. For integers a, b, c: if a \mid bc, then a \mid b or a \mid c

· Counterexample: Let a = 6, b = 2, c = 3.
bc = 6, so 6 \mid 6 is true. But 6 \nmid 2 and 6 \nmid 3.

· Answer: False

iii. \forall x \in \mathbb{R},\; -|x| \le x \le |x|

· Case 1: x \ge 0: |x| = x, inequality becomes -x \le x \le x.

Right part x \le x is true. Left part -x \le x means 0 \le 2x, true for x \ge 0.

· Case 2: x < 0: |x| = -x, inequality becomes x \le x \le -x.

Left part x \le x is true. Right part x \le -x means 2x \le 0, true for x \le 0.

· Answer: True

---

Q−2: [8 marks]

a) [4 marks] For any sets A, B: If (A \cup B) \subseteq (A \cap B), then A = B.

Proof by double inclusion:

Step 1: Show A \subseteq B.

Take any x \in A. Then x \in A \cup B.

Since A \cup B \subseteq A \cap B, we have x \in A \cap B.

Therefore x \in B. So A \subseteq B.

Step 2: Show B \subseteq A.

Take any x \in B. Then x \in A \cup B.


Since A \cup B \subseteq A \cap B, we have x \in A \cap B.

Therefore x \in A. So B \subseteq A.

Step 3: Conclusion.

A \subseteq B and B \subseteq A imply A = B.

Answer: The statement is true.

---

b) [2 marks] Prove that \lceil x \rceil = -\lfloor -x \rfloor.

Step 1: Let n = \lfloor -x \rfloor. By definition of floor:

n \le -x < n + 1

Step 2: Multiply by -1 (reverse inequalities):

-n \ge x > -n - 1

Rewrite as:

-n - 1 < x \le -n

Step 3: From x \le -n, we see that -n is an upper bound.

From x > -n - 1, we see that -n - 1 is less than x.


Therefore, the smallest integer greater than or equal to x is -n:

\lceil x \rceil = -n

Step 4: Substitute n = \lfloor -x \rfloor:

\lceil x \rceil = -\lfloor -x \rfloor

---

c) [2 marks] If S is the set of primes less than 15, find \displaystyle \sum_{i \in S} i^2.

Step 1: List the primes less than 15:

S = \{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13\}

Step 2: Square each:

2^2 = 4,\; 3^2 = 9,\; 5^2 = 25,\; 7^2 = 49,\; 11^2 = 121,\; 13^2 = 169

Step 3: Add step by step:

4 + 9 = 13

13 + 25 = 38
38 + 49 = 87

87 + 121 = 208

208 + 169 = 377

Answer: 377

You might also like