I'll fv.*king kill your entire family you gay b17ch
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: 35841000
Step-by-step explanation: Well basically 10^5 is 10 followed by 4 zeros (100000). Knowing this multiply 358.41*100000 which is 35841000.
I think this is correct but I may have done something wrong
Answer:
No there cannot be.
Step-by-step explanation:
In explaining this question, I would like us to take into account who the barber is,
" the barber is the one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves".
This barber cannot be in existence because who would shave him? If he should shave himself then there is a violation of the rule which says he shaves only those who do not shave themselves. If he shaves himself then he ceases to be a barber. And if he does not shave himself then he happens to be under those who must be shaved by the barber, because of what the rule says. But then he is the barber.
This lead us to a contradiction.
Neither is possible so there is no such barber.
Answer:
Lien earned $23,800
Husband earned $22,600
Step-by-step explanation:
$45,200 divide it by 2 = $22,600
then you add $1,200 to $22,600 and get $23,800