In: Computer Science
1. If I can assume "not P" and derive "not Q", I have completed an indirect proof of the statement "P → Q".
T/F? Why?
2. If I want to prove "P → (x XOR NOT y)", it suffices to prove "P → (x AND y)".
T/F? Why?
3. Suppose I assume "A" and derive "B". Then I start over, assume "not B", and derive a contradiction. Then I may conclude that A is a tautology.
T/F? Why?
4. Suppose I first assume "A xor B" and prove "C".
Then I start over, assume "P", and prove "A and not B".
Finally I start again, assume "Q", and prove "not A and B".
Then I may conclude "(P or Q) → C".
T/F? Why?
5. Suppose I first assume A and derive B.
Then I start over, assume "not C", and derive "not B".
Then I start over, assume "C and not A", and derive "0".
I can now conclude that A, B, and C are all equivalent to one another.
T/F? Why?
Solution is provided below. If any doubt please comment it below.
Explanation:
Explanation:
Explanation:
Explanation:
Explanation: