In accordance with propositional logic, quantifier theory and definitions of simple and composite propositions, the negation of a implication has the following equivalence:

$\neg (\exists \,x\, (P(x) \implies Q(x))) \iff \forall \,x (\neg \,Q(x) \,\land \,P(x))$ (Correct choice: iii)

<h3>How to find the equivalent form of a proposition</h3>

Herein we have a composite proposition, that is, the union of monary and binary operators and simple propositions. According to propositional logic and quantifier theory, the negation of an implication is equivalent to:

$\neg (\exists \,x\, (P(x) \implies Q(x))) \iff \forall \,x (\neg \,Q(x) \,\land \,P(x))$

To learn more on propositions: brainly.com/question/14789062

#SPJ1

8 0

2 years ago

Simplify the expression: (2p + 1)(2) =

Oxana [17]

Answer:

4p +2

Step-by-step explanation:

(2p + 1)(2)

Distribute

2p * 2 + 1*2

4p +2

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

On a January day in Michigan, the low temperature was 5 degrees colder than 2℉ and the high temperature was 5 degrees warmer tha

aliya0001 [1]

Answer:

-3 was the low and the high temp. is 7

Step-by-step explanation:

8 0

3 years ago

Write a real-world problem that can be modeled by the equation 1.25x=0.75x+50

dimulka [17.4K]

We have such equation
1.25x=0.75x+50 /-0.75x (subtract 0.75 both sides)
1.25x-0.75x=0.75x-0.75x+50
0.5x=50 /*2 (multiply both sides times 2)
0.5x*2=50*2
x=100 - its the answer

7 0

3 years ago