` Pamanstasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Department of Mathematics

GE-04 MATHEMATICS IN THE MODERN WORLD

Name: Calma, Jasmine M. Course & Section: BSCE 1-8 Date: September 2, 2024
Lecturer: Dioscorro III G. Lumogdang Score:

1. Show that the following compound propositions are logically equivalent.

A. ¬(p v (¬q ^ (r → p))) and ¬p ^ (¬r → q)
Truth Table for ¬(p∨(¬q∧(r→p)))
P Q R ¬Q r→p ¬Q ∧ p∨(¬Q ∧ ¬(p∨(¬Q
(r→p) (r→p)) ∧ (r→p)))
T T T F T F T F
T T F F T F T F
T F T T T T T F
T F F T T T T F
F T T F F F F T
F T F F T F F T
F F T T F F F T
F F F T T T F T

Truth Table for ¬p∧(¬r→q)

P Q R ¬R ¬R→Q ¬P ¬P∧(¬R→Q
)
T T T F T F F
T T F T T F F
T F T F F F F
T F F T F F F
F T T F T T T
F T F T T T T
F F T F T T T
F F F T F T T

The results in the last columns of both truth tables match exactly, proving that ¬(p∨(¬q∧(r→p))) is
logically equivalent to ¬p∧(¬r→q].
By comparing the truth tables for each pair of propositions, we have shown that:
 ¬(p∨(¬q∧(r→p))) is logically equivalent to ¬p∧(¬r→q).
 p↔q is logically equivalent to (p∧q)∨(¬p∧¬q).
2. Construct truth table to test the following sentences for tautology, contradiction, and contingency.
A. Pv (Q → P)
p q q→p p∨(q→p)

T T T T

T F T T

F T F F

F F T T
Conclusion:
 Tautology: p ∨ (q→p) is not a tautology because it is false in one case.
 Contradiction: p ∨ (q→p) is not a contradiction because it is true in most cases.
 Contingency: p ∨ (q→p) is a contingency because it has both true and false outcomes.
Hence, the proposition p ∨ (q→p) is a contingency.
B. (P ←→ → Q) & [(~P v ~Q) & P]
P Q P↔Q ¬P ¬Q ¬P∨¬Q (¬P∨¬Q)∧ (P↔Q)∧[(¬P∨¬Q)∧

P P]

T T T F F F F F

T F F F T T T F

F T F T F T F F

F F T T T T F F

Conclusion:
 Tautology: (P ←→ → Q) & [(~P v ~Q) & P] is not a tautology because it is all false.
 Contradiction: (P ←→ → Q) & [(~P v ~Q) & P] is a contradiction because it is false in every
case.
 Contingency: (P ←→ → Q) & [(~P v ~Q) & P] is not a contingency because it does not have both
true and false outcomes.
Hence, the proposition (P↔Q)∧[(¬P∨¬Q)∧P] is a contradiction.

C. (P ←→ Q) & (P→ Q)

P Q P↔Q P→Q (P↔Q)∧(P→Q)

T T T T T

T F F F F

F T F T F

F F T T T
Conclusion:

 Tautology: (P ←→ Q) & (P→ Q) is not a tautology because it is false in one case.

 Contradiction: (P ←→ Q) & (P→ Q) is not a contradiction because it is true in most cases.

 Contingency: (P ←→ Q) & (P→ Q) is a contingency because it has both true and false outcomes.

Hence, the proposition (P ←→ Q) & (P→ Q) is a contingency.

D. [P → (Q → R)] & (R → P)

P Q R Q→R P→(Q→R) R→P (P→(Q→R))∧(R→P

T T T T T T T

T T F F F T F

T F T T T T T

T F F T T T T

F T T T T F F

F T F F T F F

F F T T T T T

F F F T T T T

Conclusion:

 Tautology: [P → (Q → R)] & (R → P) is not a tautology because it is false in one case.

 Contradiction: [P → (Q → R)] & (R → P) is not a contradiction because it is true in most cases.

 Contingency: [P → (Q → R)] & (R → P) is a contingency because it has both true and false

outcomes.

Hence, the proposition [P → (Q → R)] & (R → P) is a contingency.

E. (P ←→ Q) v ~ [(~P & Q) v (P & ~Q)

P Q ¬P ¬Q P↔Q ¬P∧Q P∧¬Q (¬P∧Q) ¬[(¬P∧Q) (P↔Q)∨¬[(¬P∧Q)

∨ ∨ ∨

(P∧¬Q) (P∧¬Q)] (P∧¬Q)]

T T F F T F F F T T

T F F T F F T T F F
 F T T F F T F T F F

F F T T T T F T F T

Conclusion:

 Tautology: (P ←→ Q) v ~ [(~P & Q) v (P & ~Q) is not a tautology because it is false in one case.

 Contradiction: (P ←→ Q) v ~ [(~P & Q) v (P & ~Q)is not a contradiction because it is true in

most cases.

 Contingency: (P ←→ Q) v ~ [(~P & Q) v (P & ~Q) is a contingency because it has both true and

false outcomes.

Hence, the proposition (P ←→ Q) v ~ [(~P & Q) v (P & ~Q) is a contingency.