Im stuck and having trouble with ¬P ∨ Q Prove: P → Q Planned maintenance scheduled April...
Why is one lightbulb in a string illuminated?
Raising a bilingual kid. When should we introduce the majority language?
How to create a command for the "strange m" symbol in latex?
Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba?
Lights are flickering on and off after accidentally bumping into light switch
false 'Security alert' from Google - every login generates mails from 'no-reply@accounts.google.com'
tabularx column has extra padding at right?
Why do C and C++ allow the expression (int) + 4*5?
Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?
Why aren't these two solutions equivalent? Combinatorics problem
A journey... into the MIND
Etymology of 見舞い
Does using the Inspiration rules for character defects encourage My Guy Syndrome?
Can a Knight grant Knighthood to another?
Normal Operator || T^2|| = ||T||^2
Trying to enter the Fox's den
How do I deal with an erroneously large refund?
Who can become a wight?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
What documents does someone with a long-term visa need to travel to another Schengen country?
How to mute a string and play another at the same time
Coin Game with infinite paradox
Why doesn't the university give past final exams' answers?
Why do people think Winterfell crypts is the safest place for women, children & old people?
Im stuck and having trouble with ¬P ∨ Q Prove: P → Q
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Help with simple deductive proofInvalid arguments with true premises and true conclusionWhat are the important effects of studying logic?If F is a sufficient condition for G, is lacking G a sufficient condition for lacking F?How to prove (P ∧ ¬Q) ↔ ¬(P → Q)Prove (¬P ∨ Q) ↔ (P → Q)How to prove the tautology ¬(P↔¬P) using Fitch?How do you prove B v A |- A v B?I have trouble understanding this fallacy: “If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A.”trouble with rules of inference practice problems
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ¬P ∨ Q?
logic
New contributor
add a comment |
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ¬P ∨ Q?
logic
New contributor
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
add a comment |
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ¬P ∨ Q?
logic
New contributor
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ¬P ∨ Q?
logic
logic
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
61
61
New contributor
New contributor
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
2
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62058%2fim-stuck-and-having-trouble-with-%25ef%25bf%25a2p-%25e2%2588%25a8-q-prove-p-%25e2%2586%2592-q%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
add a comment |
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
add a comment |
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
answered 46 mins ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,03418
1,03418
add a comment |
add a comment |
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62058%2fim-stuck-and-having-trouble-with-%25ef%25bf%25a2p-%25e2%2588%25a8-q-prove-p-%25e2%2586%2592-q%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago