retagged by
8,883 views
29 votes
29 votes

The statement $\left ( ¬p \right ) \Rightarrow \left ( ¬q \right )$ is logically equivalent to which of the statements below?

  1. $p \Rightarrow q$
  2. $q \Rightarrow p$
  3. $\left ( ¬q \right ) \vee p$
  4. $\left ( ¬p \right ) \vee q$
  1. I only
  2. I and IV only
  3. II only
  4. II and III only
retagged by

8 Answers

Best answer
32 votes
32 votes
$(\neg P\to \neg Q)$ can also be written as $(P \vee \neg Q),$ so statement $3$ is correct.

Now taking the contrapositive of $(\neg P\to \neg Q)$, we get $(Q\to P)$ hence statement $2$ is correct.

So, the answer is OPTION (D).
edited by
11 votes
11 votes
Given statement : ~p $\Rightarrow$ ~q

= ~(~p) $\vee$ ~q

= p $\vee$ ~q

= ~q $\vee$ p

= q $\Rightarrow$ p

$\therefore$ D should be answer.
4 votes
4 votes

Option D.

$(\sim p) \Rightarrow (\sim q)$

$\sim (\sim p) \vee (\sim q)$

$p \vee (\sim q)$

$ (\sim q) \vee p$ ----------------> III is True

$q \Rightarrow p$   -----------------> II is True

4 votes
4 votes

we know that p→ q   is equivalent to ~p v q

similarly ~p→~q will be equivalent to p v ~q (III)

and implication is equivalent to contrapositive ,  ~p→~q   will be equivalent to q→ p (II)

answer: Both II & III ,OPTION D

Answer:

Related questions

48 votes
48 votes
10 answers
1
25 votes
25 votes
7 answers
3
khushtak asked Feb 14, 2017
6,938 views
Consider the following table:$$\begin{array}{|l|}\hline \textbf {Algorithms} & \textbf{Design Paradigms } & \\\hline \text{P. Kruskal} & \text{i. Divide and Conquer} \...
20 votes
20 votes
8 answers
4
Arjun asked Feb 14, 2017
8,612 views
The probability that a $k$-digit number does NOT contain the digits $0, 5,$ or $9$ is$0.3^{k}$$0.6^{k}$$0.7^{k}$$0.9^{k}$