I understand that ~(~q ∧ ~r) simplifies down to (q v r), but I don't understand how the answer to this question is q v r.
For (p v (r v q)), I can simplify it to be (p v r v q). I thought maybe I could use the Universal Bound Laws or Identity Laws, but neither of the two equations leftover are tautologies or contradictions. Is there a specific property that I'm missing to handle (p v r v q) ∧ (q v r).
Thanks!
You're missing out something really simple!
I don't know exactly how you're treating stuff formally, but note that
q v rimpliesp v q v rand hence(p v r v q) ∧ (q v r)can be rewritten as(q v r).In the book "How to Prove It" by Daniel Velleman this law is called an Absorption Law.