Determine whether each argument is valid. If the argument is valid, givea proof using the laws of logic. If the argument is invalid, give values for the predicates P and Q over the domain a, b that demonstrate the argument is invalid. a) ∃x(p(x)∧Q(x)) ∴∃x Q(x)∧ ∃P(x) b) ∀x(p(x)∨Q(x)) ∴∀x Q(x)∨ ∀P(x)
Determine whether each argument is valid. If the argument is valid, givea proof using the laws of logic. If the argument is invalid, give values for the predicates P and Q over the domain a, b that demonstrate the argument is invalid.
a)
∃x(p(x)∧Q(x))
∴∃x Q(x)∧ ∃P(x)
b)
∀x(p(x)∨Q(x))
∴∀x Q(x)∨ ∀P(x)
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps
How would you put the last question answered in a truth table? For example setting particular element variables to the predicates domain? I've attached an image of my textbook explaining how to make the truth table to prove a quantified arguement invalid, but I am struggling to understand the explanation. Could you use the invalid argument of this users original question to explain how and make a truth table?
by Bartleby Expert
