Using properties of semantic equivalence I would like to prove:
(p⇒r) ∧ (q⇒r) ≡ (p V q) ⇒ r
I have wound up with the correct result however the steps it took to get there seemed excessive. If anyone can tell me if I have added unnecessary steps it would be very helpful. I am asked to not use a rule twice in one step - hence the separation of implication rules in the beginning. Thank you in advance.
(implication)
(﹁p) V r ∧ (q ⇒ r)
(implication)
(﹁p) V r ∧ (﹁q) V r
(associativity)
(﹁p V r) ∧ (﹁q V r)
(commutavity)
(r V ﹁p) ∧ (r V ﹁q)
(distributivity)
r V (﹁p ∧ ﹁q)
(commutativity)
(﹁p ∧ ﹁q) V r
(deMorgan's)
﹁(p ∧ q) V r
(implication)
(p ∧ q) ⇒ r
You start out just fine, but you can save yourself a couple of lines by keeping expressions in parentheses.
Starting from
$$(p \rightarrow r) \land (q \rightarrow r)\tag 1$$
we can apply the definition of implication twice: once for each expression in parentheses.
$$\equiv ((\lnot p) \lor r) \land ((\lnot q) \lor r)\tag 2$$
Now, using distributivity ("backwards"), we see that we have:
$$\equiv (\lnot p \land \lnot q) \lor r\tag{3}$$
But by DeMorgan's, we can write $(3)$ as $$\equiv \lnot(p \lor q) \lor r\tag 4$$
And now we can invoke the definition of implication ("backwards") to get the desired result:
$$\equiv (p \lor q)\rightarrow r\tag{5}$$