Answer:
See the argument below
Step-by-step explanation:
I will give the argument in symbolic form, using rules of inference.
First, let's conclude c.
(1)⇒a by simplification of conjunction
a⇒¬(¬a) by double negation
¬(¬a)∧(2)⇒¬(¬c) by Modus tollens
¬(¬c)⇒c by double negation
Now, the premise (5) is equivalent to ¬d∧¬h which is one of De Morgan's laws. From simplification, we conclude ¬h. We also concluded c before, then by adjunction, we conclude c∧¬h.
An alternative approach to De Morgan's law is the following:
By contradiction proof, assume h is true.
h⇒d∨h by addition
(5)∧(d∨h)⇒¬(d∨h)∧(d∨h), a contradiction. Hence we conclude ¬h.
Answer:
Yes.
Base: 4
Step-by-step explanation:
Since we have 4 to the power of x, we do indeed have an exponent. The -2 just signifies vertical movement down.
It's not possible nothing but 1 times 5 is the only thing that multiplies to 5 and 1+5 doesn't equal 4
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
-10.6*0.5=m+11.7
-5.3=m+11.7
-5.3-11.7=m
-17=m
14.2=2(-5.8+t)
14.2=-11.6+2t
14.2+11.6=2t
25.8=2t
25.8/2=t
12.9=t
Answer:
Plain is $7 and Holiday is $15
Step-by-step explanation:
Castel: 2p + 5h = 89
Kali: 9p + 10h = 213
Double Castel's: 4p + 10h = 178
Subtract fro Kali's 9p + 10h = 213
- 4p + 10h = 178
5p = 35
p = 7 Plain is $7
Substitute 7 into one of the equations and solve for h:
2(7) + 5h = 89
14 + 5h = 89
5h = 75
h = 15 Holiday is $15
