anyone? to prove that this is a tautology then (q v r) must be true right? but how do I proof this?
I found a proof . . . but there must be a better way . . .
Recall that: . . (def. implication)Show that this is a tautology without creating a truth table:
The left side becomes: .
Then: . . (def. implication)
Ha! . . . Plato beat me to it!