Logic / Discrete Mathematics
Show that "¬p Λ q is logically equivalent to p → ¬q" . I'm not sure if the conditional identity is correct, but what I did was I negated the whole second condition and it immediately became equal to the first? Please help and if possible, show steps or what laws I have to use. Thank you.

With simple expressions like these, the easiest proof is to make a truth table...unless it is specifically prohibited in the question.
Also, there are precedence in the logical operators, just like +  * ÷.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective
The ¬ operator (which I write as ~ for simplicity) has the highest priority, in this order.
Operator Precedence
¬ 1
∧ 2
∨ 3
→ 4
↔ 5
There the first expression is interpreted as (~p)∧q which is not an identity to p>~q.
However, writing the first expression as ~(p∧q) will give a truth table of
TT F
TF T
FT T
FF T
identical to that of
p>~q
TT F
TF T
FT T
FF T
hence the identity
~(p∧q) ≡ p>~qposted by MathMate

@MathMate Thank you so much! No wonder I was going nowhere even when I did the truth table, I had a mistake in translating the proposition. Thanks again.
posted by Luke

You're welcome! :)
posted by MathMate
Respond to this Question
Similar Questions

discrete mathematics
problem has to do with three valued logic, ie the values 1, 1/2, 0 interpreted as true, unknown, and false. i need to establish the connectives for the 3 valued logic, construct truth tables for the negation, conjunction, 
discrete mathematics with applications
Determine which of the following pairs of statements forms are logically equivalent. Justify your answer using truth tables and include a few words of explanation. Read "t" to be a tautology and "c" to be a contradiction: 26. 
Discrete math
Question: Use logical equivalnces to show that the propositions !p > (q>r) and q > (p v r) are logically equivalent. I AM SO DAMN CONFUSED! I tried to solve !p > (q > r) first and I only got to !p > (!q v 
Phil103 Informal Logic
1. Question : "~ P v Q" is best read as Student Answer: Not P and Q INCORRECT It is not the case that P and it is not the case that Q CORRECT It is not the case that P or Q It is not the case that P and Q Instructor Explanation: 
conditional sentence
1. If the sound system hadn't failed,last night's show would have been better a. this is a correct sentence using the 1st conditional form b. this is correct sentence using the 2nd conditional form C. this is a correct sentence 
Grammar Advisor
I just cannot figure out if these answers are correct or not. Can you please help me? 78. If the sound system hadn’t failed, last night’s show would have been better. This is a correct sentence using the 1st conditional form. 
Geometry
A conditional statement is always logically equivalent to its a.) contrapositive b.) converse c.) conjunction d.) inverse 
conditional sentence
1. If the sound system hadn't failed, last night's show would have been better. a. this is a correct sentence using the 2nd conditional form b. this is a sentence using the 3rd conditional form Answer a. 3. if the club's manager 
calculus
Factor theorem states that "xa is a factor of f(x) if and only if f(a)=0" 1. What is the sufficient condition of the factor theorem? 2. What is the necessary condition of the factor theorem? My answer was xa is a factor of f(x) 
philospy 103
In the conditional "P →Q," "P" is a my answer is necessary condition for P