Am I misinterpreting conjunctive normal form?

Question

I am reading through Wolf's A Tour Through Mathematical Logic and I encountered Chapter 1.2 Example 6, which states: "The statement
[(P $\rightarrow$ ~Q) $\iff$ (R $\lor$ ~P)]
has the conjunctive normal form equivalent
[(P$\lor$Q$\lor$R) $\land$ (~P$\lor$Q$\lor$R) $\land$ (~P$\lor$~Q$\lor$~R)]."
This confuses me: when I draw out the truth tables, I find that they differ when P, Q, and R are all false: in this case, the first statement is true while the second is false. Is there a facet of these definitions that I'm misunderstanding?

Answer 1

The answer given in the book is incorrect as your argument about the values when the three variables are all false shows. A correct CNF for $(P \rightarrow {\sim} Q) \iff (R \lor {\sim}P)$ is $({\sim}P \lor Q \lor R) \land ({\sim P} \lor {\sim} Q \lor {\sim} R)$. I.e., the first conjunct in Wolf's answer shouldn't be there.