Why is the negation of an if-then statement an 'and' statement, and how does a chain of known equivalencies add an assumption to a proof?
Loading…
The negation
State that the negation of a conditional is a conjunction, and negate the room-cleaning statement and 'if then ', writing the second positively with .
Proving an equivalence by a chain of known ones
Derive from , De Morgan's Laws and double negation, naming the equivalence used at each step.
Write out the four-line chain starting from , then restate the claim about 3 being a factor of in the form with the extra assumption.
The table of important equivalencies
Copy the toolkit: De Morgan's Laws, the three conditional equivalencies, the biconditional, double negation, both distributive laws and both conditionals with disjunctions.