We're expected to know that: . is equivalent to
Find a logically equivalent proposition for:
by first writing its contrapositive, and then applying DeMorgan's law
and the equality for
They were trying to be helpful by outlining the steps we should follow,
. . but I think they made it more confusing.
I don't see the purpose of using the contrapositive here.
. . I wouldn't have done it that way.
Besides, the statement is a tautology . . .
which gives us: .
And this is a tautology: "a thing implies itself" ... which is always true.
I don't know of any "logically equivalent proposition" we can write . . .