Contrapositive of $pland q implies r$












1












$begingroup$


Now I understand that strictly speaking the contrapositive of this statement would be $neg r implies neg plorneg q$, but what I would like to do instead is prove that $neg rland q implies neg p$.



What I'm asking is, can I still call this a contrapositive? Or does it have some other name I could use?
Also since I'm doing this for an assignment would it be an acceptable proof of the statement? Or should I take the easy way out and simply assume all three statements and do a contradiction?



The exact wording of the question is "Given that $p$, and that $q$, show that $r$". I can give the actual statements if it helps but I imagine that would be superfluous information.






propositional-calculus







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's the contrapositive of the "curry'd" version of the statement: $pto (qto r).$
    $endgroup$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Jan 12 at 8:08












  • $begingroup$
    lor produces $lor$ and land produces $land$ (and lnot produces $lnot$), as far implications, I always felt that to or rightarrow, both of which produce $to$, were better for propositional formulas compared to implies.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 12 at 8:13










  • $begingroup$
    @drhab: Yes. Back when I was TA'ing basic logic in Beer-Sheva that was my approach: $pto q$ is a proposition, $pimplies q$ is a statement about propositions (and the two are related, of course).
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 12 at 9:07
















1












$begingroup$


Now I understand that strictly speaking the contrapositive of this statement would be $neg r implies neg plorneg q$, but what I would like to do instead is prove that $neg rland q implies neg p$.



What I'm asking is, can I still call this a contrapositive? Or does it have some other name I could use?
Also since I'm doing this for an assignment would it be an acceptable proof of the statement? Or should I take the easy way out and simply assume all three statements and do a contradiction?



The exact wording of the question is "Given that $p$, and that $q$, show that $r$". I can give the actual statements if it helps but I imagine that would be superfluous information.






propositional-calculus







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's the contrapositive of the "curry'd" version of the statement: $pto (qto r).$
    $endgroup$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Jan 12 at 8:08












  • $begingroup$
    lor produces $lor$ and land produces $land$ (and lnot produces $lnot$), as far implications, I always felt that to or rightarrow, both of which produce $to$, were better for propositional formulas compared to implies.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 12 at 8:13










  • $begingroup$
    @drhab: Yes. Back when I was TA'ing basic logic in Beer-Sheva that was my approach: $pto q$ is a proposition, $pimplies q$ is a statement about propositions (and the two are related, of course).
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 12 at 9:07














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Now I understand that strictly speaking the contrapositive of this statement would be $neg r implies neg plorneg q$, but what I would like to do instead is prove that $neg rland q implies neg p$.



What I'm asking is, can I still call this a contrapositive? Or does it have some other name I could use?
Also since I'm doing this for an assignment would it be an acceptable proof of the statement? Or should I take the easy way out and simply assume all three statements and do a contradiction?



The exact wording of the question is "Given that $p$, and that $q$, show that $r$". I can give the actual statements if it helps but I imagine that would be superfluous information.






propositional-calculus







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Now I understand that strictly speaking the contrapositive of this statement would be $neg r implies neg plorneg q$, but what I would like to do instead is prove that $neg rland q implies neg p$.



What I'm asking is, can I still call this a contrapositive? Or does it have some other name I could use?
Also since I'm doing this for an assignment would it be an acceptable proof of the statement? Or should I take the easy way out and simply assume all three statements and do a contradiction?



The exact wording of the question is "Given that $p$, and that $q$, show that $r$". I can give the actual statements if it helps but I imagine that would be superfluous information.






propositional-calculus




propositional-calculus






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 12 at 9:03









J.G.

33.4k23252




33.4k23252










asked Jan 12 at 8:01









S. TeisseireS. Teisseire

112




112








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's the contrapositive of the "curry'd" version of the statement: $pto (qto r).$
    $endgroup$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Jan 12 at 8:08












  • $begingroup$
    lor produces $lor$ and land produces $land$ (and lnot produces $lnot$), as far implications, I always felt that to or rightarrow, both of which produce $to$, were better for propositional formulas compared to implies.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 12 at 8:13










  • $begingroup$
    @drhab: Yes. Back when I was TA'ing basic logic in Beer-Sheva that was my approach: $pto q$ is a proposition, $pimplies q$ is a statement about propositions (and the two are related, of course).
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 12 at 9:07














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It's the contrapositive of the "curry'd" version of the statement: $pto (qto r).$
    $endgroup$
    – spaceisdarkgreen
    Jan 12 at 8:08












  • $begingroup$
    lor produces $lor$ and land produces $land$ (and lnot produces $lnot$), as far implications, I always felt that to or rightarrow, both of which produce $to$, were better for propositional formulas compared to implies.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 12 at 8:13










  • $begingroup$
    @drhab: Yes. Back when I was TA'ing basic logic in Beer-Sheva that was my approach: $pto q$ is a proposition, $pimplies q$ is a statement about propositions (and the two are related, of course).
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila♦
    Jan 12 at 9:07








1




1




$begingroup$
It's the contrapositive of the "curry'd" version of the statement: $pto (qto r).$
$endgroup$
– spaceisdarkgreen
Jan 12 at 8:08






$begingroup$
It's the contrapositive of the "curry'd" version of the statement: $pto (qto r).$
$endgroup$
– spaceisdarkgreen
Jan 12 at 8:08














$begingroup$
lor produces $lor$ and land produces $land$ (and lnot produces $lnot$), as far implications, I always felt that to or rightarrow, both of which produce $to$, were better for propositional formulas compared to implies.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 12 at 8:13




$begingroup$
lor produces $lor$ and land produces $land$ (and lnot produces $lnot$), as far implications, I always felt that to or rightarrow, both of which produce $to$, were better for propositional formulas compared to implies.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 12 at 8:13












$begingroup$
@drhab: Yes. Back when I was TA'ing basic logic in Beer-Sheva that was my approach: $pto q$ is a proposition, $pimplies q$ is a statement about propositions (and the two are related, of course).
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 12 at 9:07




$begingroup$
@drhab: Yes. Back when I was TA'ing basic logic in Beer-Sheva that was my approach: $pto q$ is a proposition, $pimplies q$ is a statement about propositions (and the two are related, of course).
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 12 at 9:07










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

The contrapositive to $p land qimplies r$ (which is what you are asking for in the title) is $lnot r implies lnot(p land q) = lnot p lor lnot q$. In general, the contrapositive of a statement is that the negation of the consequent implies the negation of the antecedent, however copmlicated the expression (so not only in the case $p implies q$).



This kind of proof is not nessecarily 'worse' in any sense; take this proof from math.stackexchange:



Proposition: $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, then $x neq 1.$



The easy and elegant way to prove this is by contrapositive:



If $x = 1$, then $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 = 1$.



If you only think about what happens when $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, it's not as trivial that $x neq 1.$
There are many cases where contrapositive is much easier than straightforwardly proving the implication; you will become more familiar with when this is so as you do and read more proofs. Also see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/650487/606584.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    Hint



    since $$lnot rLongrightarrow lnot plorlnot q$$then $$lnot rland qLongrightarrow (lnot plorlnot q)land q$$I leave to you to show that $$(lnot plorlnot q)land qequivlnot p$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Since sim is meant as a relation, it has spacing like that of a relation. Using either {sim} to produce the right spacing or lnotto produce $lnot$ will make this answer much more readable.
      $endgroup$
      – Asaf Karagila♦
      Jan 12 at 9:08










    • $begingroup$
      Thank you for the feedback...
      $endgroup$
      – Mostafa Ayaz
      Jan 12 at 9:09












    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3070690%2fcontrapositive-of-p-land-q-implies-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    The contrapositive to $p land qimplies r$ (which is what you are asking for in the title) is $lnot r implies lnot(p land q) = lnot p lor lnot q$. In general, the contrapositive of a statement is that the negation of the consequent implies the negation of the antecedent, however copmlicated the expression (so not only in the case $p implies q$).



    This kind of proof is not nessecarily 'worse' in any sense; take this proof from math.stackexchange:



    Proposition: $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, then $x neq 1.$



    The easy and elegant way to prove this is by contrapositive:



    If $x = 1$, then $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 = 1$.



    If you only think about what happens when $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, it's not as trivial that $x neq 1.$
    There are many cases where contrapositive is much easier than straightforwardly proving the implication; you will become more familiar with when this is so as you do and read more proofs. Also see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/650487/606584.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      The contrapositive to $p land qimplies r$ (which is what you are asking for in the title) is $lnot r implies lnot(p land q) = lnot p lor lnot q$. In general, the contrapositive of a statement is that the negation of the consequent implies the negation of the antecedent, however copmlicated the expression (so not only in the case $p implies q$).



      This kind of proof is not nessecarily 'worse' in any sense; take this proof from math.stackexchange:



      Proposition: $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, then $x neq 1.$



      The easy and elegant way to prove this is by contrapositive:



      If $x = 1$, then $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 = 1$.



      If you only think about what happens when $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, it's not as trivial that $x neq 1.$
      There are many cases where contrapositive is much easier than straightforwardly proving the implication; you will become more familiar with when this is so as you do and read more proofs. Also see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/650487/606584.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        The contrapositive to $p land qimplies r$ (which is what you are asking for in the title) is $lnot r implies lnot(p land q) = lnot p lor lnot q$. In general, the contrapositive of a statement is that the negation of the consequent implies the negation of the antecedent, however copmlicated the expression (so not only in the case $p implies q$).



        This kind of proof is not nessecarily 'worse' in any sense; take this proof from math.stackexchange:



        Proposition: $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, then $x neq 1.$



        The easy and elegant way to prove this is by contrapositive:



        If $x = 1$, then $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 = 1$.



        If you only think about what happens when $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, it's not as trivial that $x neq 1.$
        There are many cases where contrapositive is much easier than straightforwardly proving the implication; you will become more familiar with when this is so as you do and read more proofs. Also see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/650487/606584.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The contrapositive to $p land qimplies r$ (which is what you are asking for in the title) is $lnot r implies lnot(p land q) = lnot p lor lnot q$. In general, the contrapositive of a statement is that the negation of the consequent implies the negation of the antecedent, however copmlicated the expression (so not only in the case $p implies q$).



        This kind of proof is not nessecarily 'worse' in any sense; take this proof from math.stackexchange:



        Proposition: $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, then $x neq 1.$



        The easy and elegant way to prove this is by contrapositive:



        If $x = 1$, then $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 = 1$.



        If you only think about what happens when $x^4 - x^3 + x^2 neq 1$, it's not as trivial that $x neq 1.$
        There are many cases where contrapositive is much easier than straightforwardly proving the implication; you will become more familiar with when this is so as you do and read more proofs. Also see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/650487/606584.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 12 at 8:20









        Steven WagterSteven Wagter

        1789




        1789























            1












            $begingroup$

            Hint



            since $$lnot rLongrightarrow lnot plorlnot q$$then $$lnot rland qLongrightarrow (lnot plorlnot q)land q$$I leave to you to show that $$(lnot plorlnot q)land qequivlnot p$$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Since sim is meant as a relation, it has spacing like that of a relation. Using either {sim} to produce the right spacing or lnotto produce $lnot$ will make this answer much more readable.
              $endgroup$
              – Asaf Karagila♦
              Jan 12 at 9:08










            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for the feedback...
              $endgroup$
              – Mostafa Ayaz
              Jan 12 at 9:09
















            1












            $begingroup$

            Hint



            since $$lnot rLongrightarrow lnot plorlnot q$$then $$lnot rland qLongrightarrow (lnot plorlnot q)land q$$I leave to you to show that $$(lnot plorlnot q)land qequivlnot p$$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Since sim is meant as a relation, it has spacing like that of a relation. Using either {sim} to produce the right spacing or lnotto produce $lnot$ will make this answer much more readable.
              $endgroup$
              – Asaf Karagila♦
              Jan 12 at 9:08










            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for the feedback...
              $endgroup$
              – Mostafa Ayaz
              Jan 12 at 9:09














            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            Hint



            since $$lnot rLongrightarrow lnot plorlnot q$$then $$lnot rland qLongrightarrow (lnot plorlnot q)land q$$I leave to you to show that $$(lnot plorlnot q)land qequivlnot p$$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Hint



            since $$lnot rLongrightarrow lnot plorlnot q$$then $$lnot rland qLongrightarrow (lnot plorlnot q)land q$$I leave to you to show that $$(lnot plorlnot q)land qequivlnot p$$







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Jan 12 at 9:09

























            answered Jan 12 at 8:57









            Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz

            18.1k31040




            18.1k31040












            • $begingroup$
              Since sim is meant as a relation, it has spacing like that of a relation. Using either {sim} to produce the right spacing or lnotto produce $lnot$ will make this answer much more readable.
              $endgroup$
              – Asaf Karagila♦
              Jan 12 at 9:08










            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for the feedback...
              $endgroup$
              – Mostafa Ayaz
              Jan 12 at 9:09


















            • $begingroup$
              Since sim is meant as a relation, it has spacing like that of a relation. Using either {sim} to produce the right spacing or lnotto produce $lnot$ will make this answer much more readable.
              $endgroup$
              – Asaf Karagila♦
              Jan 12 at 9:08










            • $begingroup$
              Thank you for the feedback...
              $endgroup$
              – Mostafa Ayaz
              Jan 12 at 9:09
















            $begingroup$
            Since sim is meant as a relation, it has spacing like that of a relation. Using either {sim} to produce the right spacing or lnotto produce $lnot$ will make this answer much more readable.
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Karagila♦
            Jan 12 at 9:08




            $begingroup$
            Since sim is meant as a relation, it has spacing like that of a relation. Using either {sim} to produce the right spacing or lnotto produce $lnot$ will make this answer much more readable.
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Karagila♦
            Jan 12 at 9:08












            $begingroup$
            Thank you for the feedback...
            $endgroup$
            – Mostafa Ayaz
            Jan 12 at 9:09




            $begingroup$
            Thank you for the feedback...
            $endgroup$
            – Mostafa Ayaz
            Jan 12 at 9:09


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3070690%2fcontrapositive-of-p-land-q-implies-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Bressuire

            Image
            .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
            Read more

            Cabo Verde

            Image
              Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º)
            Read more

            Gyllenstierna

            Image
            .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
            Read more