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

1 year ago

I need help with this plz

Morgarella [4.7K]

Answer:

i would go with B

Step-by-step explanation:

I'm not too sure I'm so sorry but thats my closest guess

8 0

2 years ago

Suppose a triangle has sides a, b, and c, and let theta be opposite the side of length a. If cos theta < 0, what must be true

katrin2010 [14]

If $\cos \theta\ \textless \ 0$ , then angle $\theta$ is obtuse and triangle with sides a, b, c is obtuse triangle.
In an arbitrary triangle can be only one obtuse angle, and the side which lies opposite to the largest angle is the largest. Then since angle $\theta$ is opposite the side of length a you can conclude that a>c and a>b.

6 0

3 years ago