The first problem is found to be (P absorbs non-Q) through equivalence calculation, so it is not conjunctive normal form. This proposition is true when p = 0 and q = 1, and false when q = 0 and p = 1, so it is satisfiable. Question 2 examines the power set, which is the set of all subsets, so it is the n power with the number of elements of 2. A*A is an ordered pair of sets, and the ordered pair takes an element in A and an element in B, where B is A, so it has the square of1* A * A = A. The proposition of the fourth question is that the declarative sentence has a truth value, A is not a declarative sentence, C has no truth value because it doesn't know the value of X, and D is an interrogative sentence. The fifth topic is the equivalence between existential proposition and formula. Although sum is used in the first judgment question, this sum connects two people in the subject of the sentence, and the whole sentence is still a simple declarative sentence, so it is an atomic proposition. 2 is the negative equivalent of quantifier. The mistake is that it says that the theoretical basis is the general specified rule, and it should be the existence of the specified rule. Because propositional predicates exist in any sum. The error is that x and y don't know the size, and the true value can't be determined. It is wrong to understand the set u as two unrelated sets. For example, A={a, b, c} B={a} C={b, c} 7 is also wrong. What is wrong is that if A={ 1, 2,3} R 1 is its relationship, r1is equal to {/kloc-. & lt2 >} It is both symmetric and antisymmetric.