`[p ^^ (~ q)] ^^ [(~p) vv q]` is

Observe the following statements I : The dual of [ ~p ^^ q)] vv [ p ^^ {~(q vv ~s)}] is [~(p vv q)] ^^ [p vv{~(q ^^ ~s)}] II : The dual of ~p ^^ [(~q) ^^ (p vv q) ^^ ~r] is ~p vv[~q) vv(p ^^ q) vv ~r] The true statements in the above is/are :

Observe the following statements I : The dual of [ ~p ^^ q)] vv [ p ^^ {~(q vv ~s)}] is [~(p vv q)] ^^ [p vv{~(q ^^ ~s)}] II : The dual of ~p ^^ [(~q) ^^ (p vv q) ^^ ~r] is ~p vv[~q) vv(p ^^ q) vv ~r] The true statements in the above is/are :

~[(p ^^ q)to(~p vv q)] is a

Let p and q be any two propositons Statement 1 : (p rarr q) harr q vv ~p is a tautology Statement 2 : ~(~p ^^ q) ^^ (p vv q) harr p is fallacy

Let p and q be any two propositons Statement 1 : (p rarr q) harr q vv ~p is a tautology Statement 2 : ~(~p ^^ q) ^^ (p vv q) harr p is fallacy

~[(~p) ^^q] is logically equivalent to a) ~ (p vv q) b) ~ [p ^^ (~q)] c) p ^^ (~q) d) p vv (~q)

The compound statement (p ^^ q) to ( p vv q) is

(p ^^ q) vv (~q ^^ p) -=