Member since Apr 2018
28 posts

20181230, 19:40 #1
Subject: Assignment 9
I'm having trouble proving the third formula in 9.2.
Is it allowed to transform logically equivalent formulas? In my case I'd like to make notA and not(A=>B) contradict, as, A=>B HAS to be true by its definition via or... If that's not allowed (which I kinda assume), any hints how to deal with this syntactically? 
Member since Oct 2016
770 posts

20181230, 20:07 #2
No; the exercise is explicitly to use natural deduction Even those definitions don't matter in the context of natural deduction, since you have specific rules for implications  and it's almost always easier to use those directly rather than go via the definitions (which in addition are somewhat arbitrary anyway, since you can define almost any connective in terms of almost any others...) 
Member since Oct 2016
770 posts

20181230, 20:10 #3
In reply to post #1
+1 Stella
The good thing about natural deduction is that there's almost always pretty much only "one way" to go about things. For example, to prove an implication ((P=>Q)=>P)=>P, pretty much the only thing you *can* do is to *assume* (P=>Q)=>P and derive P from that. And of yourse you may always assume the opposite of what you're trying to prove (e.g. P) and try to derive a contradiction (and using FALSEelimination on that)... 
Member since Apr 2018
28 posts

20181230, 21:10 #4
Well "easier" is a strong word xD The proof just got 5 times more voluminous on paper :'D Your hint has been helpful though!

Member since Oct 2016
770 posts

20190103, 10:38 #5
As my calculus professor used to say: "If you don't succeed  don't try harder, try the opposite!" 
Datenschutz 
Kontakt
Powered by the Unclassified NewsBoard software, 20150713dev,
© 20032011 by Yves Goergen