$(P\implies Q)\land(Q\implies R)$ is equivalent to $P\implies R$. Is this true? How to prove this directly, not using truth tables?
-
3It is not equivalent. If you do the truth table of each, not all rows match. What can be said is that the first one implies the second one. – coffeemath May 31 '16 at 20:59
-
Formatting tips here. – Em. May 31 '16 at 21:00
-
1Maybe another edit to put parentheses around the two implications appearing in the title. Typically and has higher precedence than implication. – coffeemath May 31 '16 at 21:49
5 Answers
If $P$ and $R$ are true, then $P \implies R$ is true no matter what $Q$ is. So just choose a $Q$ to make one of the statements $P \implies Q$ and $Q \implies R$ become false, then the two sides don't agree. In this case choosing $Q$ to be false works.
- 29,884
- 2
- 31
- 52
They aren’t equivalent. You mentioned wanting a proof without truth tables, but here is one, anyway. $\newcommand{\tru}{{\color{#0c0}T}}$ $\newcommand{\fal}{{\color{#c00}F}}$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline P & Q & R & (P \Rightarrow Q) \wedge (Q \Rightarrow R) & P \Rightarrow R \\ \hline \fal & \fal & \fal & \tru & \tru \\ \fal & \fal & \tru & \tru & \tru \\ \fal & \tru & \fal & \fal & \tru \\ \fal & \tru & \tru & \tru & \tru \\ \tru & \fal & \fal & \fal & \fal \\ \tru & \fal & \tru & \fal & \tru \\ \tru & \tru & \fal & \fal & \fal \\ \tru & \tru & \tru & \tru & \tru \\ \hline \end{array}
It is true, however, that
$$(P \Rightarrow Q) \wedge (Q \Rightarrow R) \text{ implies } P \Rightarrow R.$$
- 3,338
-
In row 3 of this table, since Q true and R false, Q implies R is false, so there should be false for the first term in that row. – coffeemath Jun 01 '16 at 12:46
-
Yes with the fix can see now two cases where the expressions have different truth values, FTF and TFT. – coffeemath Jun 01 '16 at 12:56
$\begin{align} & \underline{\begin{align} & P\to Q\Leftrightarrow \,\sim P\vee Q \\ & Q\to R\Leftrightarrow \,\sim Q\vee R \\ \end{align}} \\ & (P\to Q)\wedge (Q\to R)\Leftrightarrow (\sim P\vee Q)\wedge (\sim Q\vee R) \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Leftrightarrow [(\sim P\vee Q)\wedge \sim Q]\vee [(\sim P\vee Q)\wedge R] \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Leftrightarrow [(\sim P\wedge \sim Q)\vee \underbrace{(Q\,\wedge \sim Q)}_{F}]\vee [(\sim P\wedge R)\vee (Q\,\wedge R)] \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Leftrightarrow (\sim P\wedge \sim Q)\vee (\sim P\wedge R)\vee (Q\,\wedge R) \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Leftrightarrow \,\,\sim P\wedge (\sim Q\vee R)\vee (Q\,\wedge R) \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Leftrightarrow \,\,\sim P\wedge [(\sim Q\vee R)\vee (Q\,\wedge R)] \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Leftrightarrow \,\,\sim P\wedge [(\sim Q\vee R)\vee (Q\,\wedge R)] \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Leftrightarrow \,\,\sim P\wedge (\,\underbrace{[(\sim Q\vee R)\vee Q\,]}_{R}\wedge \underbrace{[(\sim Q\vee R)\vee R}_{\sim Q\vee R}\,]) \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\ \to \,\,\sim P\wedge R \\ & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\ \to \,\,P\to R \\ \end{align}$
- 11,182
-
1If P is true, Q is false, and R is is true $(P \implies Q)\wedge (Q \implies R)$ is false but $P \implies R$ is true. – Ross Millikan May 31 '16 at 22:59
-
1If you have proven that the two are equivalent, you have made a mistake (but maybe the lack of words has caused me to misunderstand what the purpose of the answer is). You might also want to look into the align environment. – pjs36 May 31 '16 at 22:59
-
1
$(p \to q) \land (q \to r) \implies (p \to r)$
$(p \to r)$ means that everytime $p$ is true, then $r$ is also true.
From the left side $\left(p \to q\right)$, we have that when $p$ is true, then $q$ is true. From the left side $\left(q \to r\right)$, we have that when $q$ is true then so is $r$. Then $(p \to r)$, like the right side says. So the left side implies the right side.
To check that the converse is not true (the right side DOES NOT implies the left side), check @coffeemath answer. So the expressions are not equivalent.
- 161
These two statements are clearly not equivalent:
- If $p$ is divisible by 4, then it's even.
- If $p$ is divisible by 4, then pigs can fly. Furthermore, if pigs can fly, then $p$ is even.
So the equivalence can't hold in general.
- 3,338