prove that ¬(p ∧ ¬q )→ (¬q )→ ¬p) ⇔ T is a tautology using laws

[lukasforstrom]

I'm supposed to prove this using the different laws for propositional calculus. but I'm getting stuck and I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

 

[Steven G]

It is hard to tell you where you are going wrong if you fail to show your work, so please do that.

 

[pka]

I'm supposed to prove this using the different laws for propositional calculus. but I'm getting stuck and I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

As posted it reads:
prove that ¬(p ∧ ¬q )→ (¬q )→ ¬p) ⇔ T is a tautology using laws
There is a miss-match in parentheses. But even with using all possibilities it is not a tautology. SEE HREE

 

[Steven G]

¬(p ∧ ¬q )→ (¬q → ¬p) ⇔ T is a tautology