0 votes
  1. For the given formula (!d|b->a) & a , after applying the precedence rule it should be written as ((!d|b)->a) & a but not (!d|(b->a)) & a Is it correct?
  2. In the question, it is already given like this: d & ((!c <->c)|a). So, in this case I shouldn't write it as: d & (!c <-> (c|a)) even though 'or' binds stronger than '<->'. Is it correct? (Because of Associativity?)

in * TF "Emb. Sys. and Rob." by (280 points)
edited by

1 Answer

0 votes
 
Best answer
On 1.:

Yes, disjunction has a higher priority than implication. See slide 5. https://es.cs.uni-kl.de/teaching/vrs/slides/VRS-02-PropLogic-1.pdf

On 2.:

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If your red parenthesis are given by the question then of course, you cannot just remove them and apply operator precedence.
by (24.7k points)
selected by

Related questions

Imprint | Privacy Policy
...