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.
Q = p(r+s)
--------------
(r+s) (r+s) Divide both sides by (r+s) so you can get the p bu itself this way you get q / (r+s) = p
Answer:
third term
Step-by-step explanation:
hope this helped
Answer:
they bisect each other
Step-by-step explanation:
<em>The diagonals of a parallelogram bisect each other</em>.
__
If they are the same length, the parallelogram is a rectangle. If they cross at right angles, it is a rhombus.
