ELI5
-p V -q is a true statement
isn't this one of de morgan's laws?
(~p) or (~q) == ~ (p and q)
A truth cannot insinuate a false, but a false can insinuate a true.
Fucking most retarded math I've ever had the misfortune of taking. Did good in the end but this shit is useless despite being easy.
>>52385144
symbol logic is the root of programming and computation
>>52385144
Dude, to work for the government here in my country, you gotta pass a test (basic and specific knowledge).
Basic knowledge normally includes first year college mathematics and logic.
To get a stable income of 10 to 30k a month, it seems pretty useful to me hehehe.
People usually memorize the entire Truth Table for the tests (they're really competitive though).
>>52385251
What country?
>>52385184
I understood that, it helped with programming, but I felt it was useless outside of programming.
>>52384671
>-p V -q is a true statement
That's not what the picture says though.
>>52385292
yeah, the picture is the superset operator.
>>52384671
>-p V -q is a true statement
Not if both p and q are true.
>>52384671
Is a contradiction. A variable cannot be true and false a the same time. OP is a faggot.
Do your own discrete math work
>>52385462
Why are you such an asshole? Could have at least told him about the board for homeworks...
>>52384671
ahh, implication. left side implies right side - basically "if left side, then right side".
T->T = T, because if the premise is true and the effect is true, then the implication is okay.
T->F = F, because quite simply, it means that left side does not imply right side (right side is true even though the left is false), so the implication is wrong, hence false.
F->T = T and F->F = T, because if the premise is false, then we can't say if the implication is false.
For example: "if there are clouds, it's raining". Keep in mind that this does not mean "it rains if AND ONLY IF there are clouds", but rather "if there are clouds, I'm 100% certain it's raining. no clouds, I don't know shit".
clouds->rain = true; crystal clear, our reasoning is okay
clouds->norain = false; even though we have clouds, there's no rain, so our assumption that clouds imply rain was wrong
noclouds->rain = true; noclouds->norain = true; basically because we can't prove that the reasoning is wrong.
>>52385447
Open your eyes retard
>>52385626
i like to think of it using set theory's superset operator better.
p is a superset of q. So, if it is false in q, then there's absolutely no logical way it can be true in p.
But if it is true in q, then p can logically 'turn it off' or 'not use' it.
>>52385679
another way to think of it is using object-oriented programming and inheritance.
if q is some base class and p inherits q, then it must exist (be truthful) in q for p to use it. p cannot built upon what isn't there.
>>52385679
what a retarded way to think about implication.
>>52385462
It's not even homework, today was the first day of class and I wanted a simpler explanation.
this desu
>>52386009
It's not retarded, it's actually the most intuitively clear way to understand it.
>>52385270
What did you expect, bitch? That discrete math was going to help you learn to talk to girls?
>>52386009
>what are Venn diagrams and why do they represent logical operators so well
>>52386335
y-yes
