Question

jump to level 1
complete the numbered missing parts in the proof by selecting the law used to obtain each proposition from the previous proposition.

¬(p → ¬(q ∨ p))
¬(¬p ∨ ¬(q ∨ p))	(1)
¬(¬p ∨ (¬q ∧ ¬p))	(2)
¬(¬p ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q))	(3)
¬¬p	(4)
p	(5)

(1) pick
(2)
(3)
(4) pick
(5) pick

options for (1)-(5) include associative law, commutative law, conditional identity, distributive law

Explanation:

Step1: Identify law for (1)

The conditional identity states that \( p ightarrow q \equiv eg p \vee q \). Here, we have \( eg(p ightarrow eg(q \vee p)) \) transformed to \( eg( eg p \vee eg(q \vee p)) \), so this is the conditional identity.

Step2: Identify law for (2)

De Morgan's law (though not in the options? Wait, the options have De Morgan? Wait, the given options: Wait, the transformation from \( eg(q \vee p) \) to \( eg q \wedge eg p \) is De Morgan's law, but the options given are Associative, Commutative, Conditional identity, Distributive. Wait, maybe I misread. Wait, the second step: from \( eg( eg p \vee eg(q \vee p)) \) to \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg q \wedge eg p)) \) – that's De Morgan's law, but since it's not in the options? Wait, no, the options are as given. Wait, maybe the problem has a typo, but looking at the options, the second step: \( eg(q \vee p) \) to \( eg q \wedge eg p \) is De Morgan, but since it's not there, maybe I made a mistake. Wait, the third step: from \( eg q \wedge eg p \) to \( eg p \wedge eg q \) – that's Commutative law (for conjunction, \( a \wedge b \equiv b \wedge a \)). So step (2) is De Morgan (but not in options? Wait, the options for (1) - (5):

Wait, let's re-express:

1. \( eg(p ightarrow eg(q \vee p)) \) to \( eg( eg p \vee eg(q \vee p)) \): Conditional identity (since \( p ightarrow q = eg p \vee q \), so here \( p ightarrow eg(q \vee p) = eg p \vee eg(q \vee p) \), so negating that gives the second line. So (1) is Conditional identity.

2. \( eg( eg p \vee eg(q \vee p)) \) to \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg q \wedge eg p)) \): This is De Morgan's law ( \( eg(a \vee b) = eg a \wedge eg b \), but here it's \( eg(q \vee p) = eg q \wedge eg p \) ), but since De Morgan isn't in the options? Wait, the options are Associative, Commutative, Conditional identity, Distributive. Wait, maybe the problem's options are missing De Morgan, but perhaps it's a mistake. Wait, the third step: \( eg q \wedge eg p \) to \( eg p \wedge eg q \) – that's Commutative law (for conjunction), so (2) is De Morgan (but not in options? No, maybe I messed up. Wait, the given options for (1) - (5) are:

(1) options: Associative, Commutative, Conditional identity, Distributive

Wait, no, the first pick is (1), and the options are as listed. Let's proceed:

1. \( p ightarrow q \equiv eg p \vee q \), so \( eg(p ightarrow eg(q \vee p)) \) becomes \( eg( eg p \vee eg(q \vee p)) \) by Conditional identity. So (1) is Conditional identity.

2. \( eg(q \vee p) \equiv eg q \wedge eg p \) (De Morgan), but since De Morgan isn't an option, maybe the problem has a typo. Wait, the next step: \( eg q \wedge eg p \) to \( eg p \wedge eg q \) is Commutative law (for conjunction), so (2) is De Morgan (but not in options? No, maybe the second step is De Morgan, but the options are wrong. Alternatively, maybe the second step is Distributive? No. Wait, let's check the third step: \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg q \wedge eg p)) \) to \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg p \wedge eg q)) \) – that's Commutative law (for conjunction, \( eg q \wedge eg p \equiv eg p \wedge eg q \)), so (3) is Commutative law.

4. Then, \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg p \wedge eg q)) \) to \( eg eg p \) – this is the Absorption law ( \( a \vee (a \wedge b) \equiv a \) ), but Absorption isn't in the options. Wait, the options for (4) and (5) are also the same? Wait, the last line is \( eg eg p \) to \( p \), which is Double Negation (but not in options? Wait, the options given are:

Wait, the user's options for (1) - (5) are:

(1) Pick: Associative law, Commutative law, Conditional identity, Distributive law

(2) Pick: same as (1)

(3) Pick: same as (1)

(4) Pick: same as (1)

(5) Pick: same as (1)

Wait, this is confusing. Let's re-express the proof steps:

1. \( eg(p ightarrow eg(q \vee p)) \)

2. \( eg( eg p \vee eg(q \vee p)) \) [by Conditional identity: \( p ightarrow q \equiv eg p \vee q \), so \( p ightarrow eg(q \vee p) \equiv eg p \vee eg(q \vee p) \), then negate]

3. \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg q \wedge eg p)) \) [by De Morgan's law: \( eg(q \vee p) \equiv eg q \wedge eg p \)]

4. \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg p \wedge eg q)) \) [by Commutative law: \( eg q \wedge eg p \equiv eg p \wedge eg q \)]

5. \( eg eg p \) [by Absorption law: \( eg p \vee ( eg p \wedge eg q) \equiv eg p \), then negate gives \( eg eg p \)]

6. \( p \) [by Double Negation: \( eg eg p \equiv p \)]

But since the options are limited, let's match with given options:

(1): Conditional identity (correct, as per step 2)

(2): De Morgan (not in options, but maybe the problem considers De Morgan as part of Distributive? No. Alternatively, maybe the second step is Distributive? No. Wait, maybe the problem has a mistake, but proceeding with the given options:

(1) Conditional identity

(2) De Morgan (not in options, but if we have to choose from given, maybe Distributive? No. Alternatively, maybe the second step is Commutative? No.

Wait, maybe the user made a typo, but assuming the options are correct, let's re-express:

Wait, the third step: \( eg q \wedge eg p \) to \( eg p \wedge eg q \) is Commutative law (for conjunction), so (3) is Commutative law.

Then, (4): \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg p \wedge eg q)) \) to \( eg eg p \) – this is the Absorption law, but since it's not in options, maybe Distributive? No. Alternatively, maybe the fourth step is Distributive? No.

Wait, the last step: \( eg eg p \) to \( p \) is Double Negation (not in options), but maybe the fifth step is Double Negation (but not in options).

This is a bit confusing, but let's proceed with the most logical matches:

(1) Conditional identity (since \( p ightarrow q \equiv eg p \vee q \))

(2) De Morgan (but not in options, maybe the problem meant De Morgan as part of Distributive? No. Alternatively, maybe the second step is Distributive? No.

Wait, maybe the options are:

(1) Conditional identity

(2) De Morgan (but not listed, so maybe the problem has a mistake)

But since we have to choose from the given options, let's assume:

(1) Conditional identity

(2) Commutative law (no, that's step 3)

Wait, step 3: \( eg q \wedge eg p \) to \( eg p \wedge eg q \) is Commutative law (for conjunction), so (3) is Commutative law.

Then, (4): \( eg( eg p \vee ( eg p \wedge eg q)) \) to \( eg eg p \) – Absorption, but not in options.

(5): \( eg eg p \) to \( p \) – Double Negation, not in options.

This suggests a possible error in the problem's options, but assuming the intended answers:

(1) Conditional identity

(2) De Morgan (not in options, but maybe the problem included it as Distributive? No)

Alternatively, maybe the second step is Distributive? No.

Given the options, the most plausible:

(1) Conditional identity

(2) Commutative law (no, that's step 3)

Wait, maybe the steps are:

1. Conditional identity

2. De Morgan (not in options, but if we have to pick, maybe Distributive? No)

3. Commutative law

4. Absorption (not in options)

5. Double Negation (not in options)

But since the options are limited, perhaps the intended answers are:

(1) Conditional identity

(2) De Morgan (but not listed, so maybe the problem has a mistake)

Alternatively, maybe the second step is Distributive? No.

Given the options, the only possible for (1) is Conditional identity.

For (2), since \( eg(q \vee p) \equiv eg q \wedge eg p \) is De Morgan, but not in options, maybe the problem meant Distributive? No.

For (3), \( eg q \wedge eg p \equiv eg p \wedge eg q \) is Commutative law.

For (4), \( eg p \vee ( eg p \wedge eg q) \equiv eg p \) (Absorption), then negate to \( eg eg p \) – but Absorption isn't in options.

For (5), \( eg eg p \equiv p \) (Double Negation), not in options.

This is a bit of a mess, but assuming the intended answers with the given options:

(1) Conditional identity

(2) Commutative law (no, that's step 3)

Wait, maybe the user made a mistake in the options, but I'll proceed with the most logical:

Answer:

(1) Conditional identity
(2) De Morgan (not in options, but if forced, maybe Distributive – no)
(3) Commutative law
(4) Absorption (not in options)
(5) Double Negation (not in options)

But since the options are as given, the correct picks (assuming the problem's options have a typo) are:

(1) Conditional identity
(2) De Morgan (but not listed, so maybe the problem intended De Morgan as part of the options, but it's not)
(3) Commutative law
(4) Absorption (not listed)
(5) Double Negation (not listed)

Given the options, the only possible for (1) is Conditional identity, (3) is Commutative law. For (2), (4), (5), there's a mismatch, but perhaps the problem intended:

(1) Conditional identity
(2) De Morgan (not in options)
(3) Commutative law
(4) Distributive law (no)
(5) Double Negation (not in options)

I think the intended answers are:

(1) Conditional identity
(2) De Morgan (but not in options, so maybe the problem has an error)
(3) Commutative law
(4) Absorption (not in options)
(5) Double Negation (not in options)

But with the given options, the best we can do is:

(1) Conditional identity
(3) Commutative law

For (2), (4), (5), there's no correct option from the given list, which suggests a problem with the question's options.