I was able to show using a truth table that the two statements (p→q)→r and p→(q→r) are NOT equivalent, I need to now verify using equivalence laws, and I'm stuck. Any guidance would be very appreciated. Here's what I got so far;
(p → q) → r ≡ (¬p ∨ q) → r — By Logical equivalence involving conditional statements
(¬p ∨ q) → r ≡ ¬(¬p ∨ q) ∨ r — By Logical equivalence involving conditional statements
¬(¬p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ (¬¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ r — By De Morgans Law
(¬¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ r ≡ (p ∧ ¬q) ∨ r — By Double Negation Law
Where do I go from here?
Best Answer
I present one demonstration that the given propositions are not equivalent using the equivalences of propositional calculus only.
Since conjunction and disjunction have full properties of commutativity, associativity and distributivity, I shall omit parentheses when there is no risk of ambiguity for the sake of better readability:
The first of the given propositions has the disjunctive form of the second one (bold-faced) as one of its conjuncts. The other conjunct makes the resultant truth-table differ from the second proposition unless it is a tautology, which is not.