## Is P implies true a tautology?

So, “if P, then P” is also always true and hence a tautology. Second, consider any sentences, P and Q, each of which is true or false and neither of which is both true and false. Consider the sentence, “(P and Not(P)) or Q”. This means exactly the same as Q, because “P and Not(P))” is always false.

Table of Contents

## What is equivalent to P → Q?

P → Q is logically equivalent to ¬ P ∨ Q . Example: “If a number is a multiple of 4, then it is even” is equivalent to, “a number is not a multiple of 4 or (else) it is even.”

**What is tautology prove that P → Q ↔ (~ p → q is a tautology?**

A proposition P is a tautology if it is true under all circumstances. It means it contains the only T in the final column of its truth table. Example: Prove that the statement (p⟶q) ↔(∼q⟶∼p) is a tautology.

**Is P → Q ↔ P a tautology a contingency or a contradiction?**

The proposition p ∨ ¬(p ∧ q) is also a tautology as the following the truth table illustrates. Exercise 2.1.

### Is P → Q → Pa tautology?

(p → q) ∧ (q → p). (This is often written as p ↔ q). Definitions: A compound proposition that is always True is called a tautology.

### What is the contrapositive of P ∨ Q → R?

∴ Contrapositive of (p∨q)⇒r is ∼r⇒∼(p∨q) i.e. ∼r⇒(∼p∧∼q).

**What is the negation of P → not Q?**

The negation of compound statements works as follows: The negation of “P and Q” is “not-P or not-Q”. The negation of “P or Q” is “not-P and not-Q”.

**What is the truth value of P → q?**

So because we don’t have statements on either side of the “and” symbol that are both true, the statment ~p∧q is false. So ~p∧q=F. Now that we know the truth value of everything in the parintheses (~p∧q), we can join this statement with ∨p to give us the final statement (~p∧q)∨p….Truth Tables.

p | q | p→q |
---|---|---|

T | F | F |

F | T | T |

F | F | T |

#### What does P implies q mean?

Suppose that P implies Q. This means that either (i) P is false (and we don’t care about Q) or (ii) P is true and Q true. In either case, we don’t care about R; it’s a red herring.

#### Does (p ⟹ q) logically imply (P ∨ Q ∨ R)?

In case (ii), Q is true (and so is P, but we don’t really care in this case), so that ¬ P ∨ Q ∨ R is true, again. To sum up, ( P ⟹ Q) logically implies ¬ P ∨ Q ∨ R.

**How do you find the tautology of a statement?**

The tautology of the given compound statement can be easily found with the help of the truth table. If all the values in the final column of a truth table are true (T), then the given compound statement is a tautology. If any of the values in the final column is false (F), then it is not a tautology. What does A∨B mean in logic?

**Does P imply Q in a red herring?**

Suppose that P implies Q. This means that either (i) P is false (and we don’t care about Q) or (ii) P is true and Q true. In either case, we don’t care about R; it’s a red herring. So in case (i), P is false, so that ¬ P ∨ Q ∨ R is true.