Show that this is a tautology without creating a truth table (changing logical expression)
(p v q) ^ (-p v r) implies (q v r)
Hello, EquinoX!
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:
. .
Hence: .
The left side becomes: .
Then: . . (def. implication)
Ha! . . . Plato beat me to it!