Proof is a chain of reasoning using rules of inference, ultimately based on a set of axioms, that lead to a conclusion.

learn more… | top users | synonyms

3
votes
1answer
89 views

Handling “paradoxes” in logic: The sentence after this is true. The sentence before this is false

My favorite paradox that leads to an endless regress, and also leads to a question: The sentence after this is true. The sentence before this is false When contradictions appear in proofs, ...
1
vote
1answer
46 views

Is a proof still valid if many people say that is true? [duplicate]

A proof is some explanation to convincing others that a statement is true (or false in case of a counterexample). As Yuri Manin once wrote: "A proof becomes a proof only after the social act of ...
1
vote
1answer
84 views

Definition of “proof”

I read a book of logical puzzles once and there was a little story in it (fictional) about some boy who received an F on his geometry test because his professor said his proof that all angles of a ...
0
votes
1answer
18 views

Modal Logic Proof, a formula is valid just if relations have a property

So I'm trying to prove that, in a language with two diamonds <1>,<2>, the formula p -> [2]<1> p is valid just in case for any x,y and R2(x,y) then R1(y,x). I have the "if" direction easily, ...
1
vote
2answers
60 views

Does scientific and logical evidence have a supremacy over emperical evidence?

Emperical evidence comes from observations and experience but not from theoretical proofs. Science heavily relies on both, yet empirical evidences are outnumbered in many fields such as mathematics, ...
4
votes
5answers
208 views

Is it possible to prove that the universe either is or isn't a simulation? [duplicate]

Can it be philosophically proven that the Universe either is or is not a simulation? If someone was in a simulation, could they tell? What would the differences be between a simulated universe and a ...
2
votes
6answers
149 views

Is logic built on assumptions?

I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but how can we know that our logical approach to ideas is not in itself based on assumptions. For example, how can we know that the workings of the ...
1
vote
5answers
186 views

If you're the smartest person on earth, how do you know if you're making logic errors? [closed]

In any logical argument, there is the practical step of verifying that it is sound. When there are experts in that particular area, they can check the argument for soundness. For two examples: A ...
0
votes
1answer
17 views

What is it mean by “to be meet with in space” by Moore?

I was reading the Moore's proof of external world, and I am completely stuck with an idea/phrase of "to be meet with in space." It is on page 130 on the following pdf philosophical papers, collier ...
-2
votes
1answer
51 views

Truth Tables and Venn Diagrams: Prove Contingent statement are consistent

I am trying to prove how consistent statements can be contigent. The problem i am having how to use a truth table to prove this.
2
votes
2answers
105 views

LPL Q6.26 without --> or material implication

This is a repeated question: Language Logic and Proof Q. 6.26 "Using the natural deduction rules, give a formal proof of A ∨ D from the premises A ∨ (B ∧ C) (¬ B ∨ ¬ C) ∨ D" The LPL textbook ...
2
votes
3answers
158 views

Help with a proof in CSL

Premise: (A implies B) implies C Conclusion: (C implies A) implies A I had a logic exam a few hours ago, and this was one of the problems, but I really didn't know where to start. Since the ...
1
vote
1answer
57 views

Transitive Incompleteness of Logical WFF's Due to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

If a set of theorems, or wff's, are used in conjunction with one another, does this have an impact on their completeness in terms of soundness? For example, I have five theorems of logic, or ...
1
vote
1answer
22 views

Are analogical middle terms sufficient for a valid demonstration?

William A. Wallace, O.P., in “Thomism and the Quantum Enigma,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 455–468, claims that analogical middle terms are sufficient for a valid demonstration and that this is a ...
3
votes
6answers
707 views

Mathematical versus philosophical reasoning (and the mathematics of philosophical arguments)?

What is the difference between mathematical reasoning and philosophical reasoning and why isn't philosophy just considered to be a branch of mathematics? Is any study not a branch of mathematics ...
0
votes
3answers
69 views

Burden of proof

Who has the burden of proof when trying to prove or disprove someones religious beliefs? I have always believed it belongs to the person who is making a claim but can there be exceptions?
2
votes
4answers
216 views

Does a statement exist which is its own proof?

In fake/pseudo mathematical notation: does there exist a statement S such that S = Proof(S)?
1
vote
2answers
175 views

An argument is valid if the premises CANNOT all be true without the conclusion being true as well

"An argument is valid if the premises CANNOT all be true without the conclusion being true as well." Argument_1: P or Q. not Q. Therefore, P. Argument_1 is valid. Argument_2: B or M. M or C. ...
2
votes
1answer
162 views

How to discharge an assumption?

I am proving the follow argument [(A ↔ B ) → C] ⊢ [ - ( A ^ B) V C ] Using the following set of rules I, ^E, vI, vE, →I, →E, ↔I, ↔E, --E, -I Here are my steps but I got to the point where I ...
2
votes
1answer
127 views

Help with a proof for the following arguments

I want to proof the following argument from both sides using the following rules ^I, ^E, vI, vE, →I, →E, ↔I, ↔E, --E, -I Argument [(A ↔ B ) → C] ⊢ [ - ( A ^ B) V C ] Please let me know ...
1
vote
1answer
84 views

Proof validity methods other than truth tables

I have read or heard some time ago that truth tables cannot be used to validate arguments which involves the use of quantifiers i.e. in predicate or quantificational logic where you can find ...
1
vote
7answers
215 views

The blur between proof and evidence

Consider this: Evidence is the foundations of proof. So, enough evidence creates proof. However, how much evidence is needed to make proof depends on the concerning persons' circumstances, ...
2
votes
3answers
195 views

How does one contradiction in argument makes the argument valid?

For any argument such as the following that we solve by "Proof by contradiction" method: (A v B) (A ⊃ C) (B ⊃ D) [ Therefore, (C v D) Assumption: ~(C v D) Therefore, ~C {from 4} Therefore, ~D {from ...
1
vote
0answers
209 views

Testing the validity of syllogism argument

I came across a validation method for testing the validity of a syllogistic argument which seems quite easier to grasp: For example: To test the argument: no P is B some C is B Therefore, some ...
0
votes
4answers
132 views

If supposing that a statement is false gives rise to a paradox, does this prove that the statement is true?

If supposing that a statement is false gives rise to a paradox, does this prove that the statement is true? Let me attempt to be a little more precise: Suppose you have a proposition. Furthermore, ...
4
votes
4answers
276 views

Rebuttal for modus ponens

Saw this (WP:"What the Tortoise said to Achilles") on the internet. A summary is as follows. The common argument is: A: If p then q B: p C: Therefore q. This raises the following question: what if ...
2
votes
1answer
45 views

help with deductive proof

∀x (Fx ∨ x=c), ¬Fb ∧ Gb |- ¬Fa → Ga So far I don't understand how to switch variables around to make it true. I've got a subproof set up assuming ¬Fa and concluding Ga In that proof I make F(b) ∨ b ...
6
votes
6answers
377 views

How do we know if a mathematical proof is valid?

Georg Cantor has showed there are more real numbers than natural numbers in his diagonal argument. Assuming that two sets have the same size if we can make a pair up elements from set A with elements ...
0
votes
1answer
49 views

If many people show positivity, is that irrefutable proof of no negativity?

I want to know how we can analyze the number of preferences versus lack of preferences, or dislikes versus likes, and determine if the balance or lack thereof signifies a truly positive affirmation or ...
1
vote
1answer
111 views

Help with simple deductive proof

I am taking a class on natural deduction for the first time and we are currently on deductive proofs, I am having trouble with this one: Premise: A Premise: [(A&B) or (C&D)] Conclusion: not ...
2
votes
1answer
61 views

Help with a modal Hilbert-style proof of (□(a>b)&◊(a&c))>◊(b&c)

Can't grasp how it can be proved. To proof just propositional calculus formula (without modal operators) at first seems rather natural to me. Tried the law of importation scheme but it didn't work ...
1
vote
1answer
106 views

showing c=a v b=c from a=c v b=c?

I am currently using the book Language, Proof and Logic So far I have 1. a=c v b=c subproof 2. a=c =intro 3 c=c =elim 1,2 4. c=a =elim 2,3 end subproof new subproof 5. b=c 6. c=c =intro 7. c=b ...
0
votes
2answers
118 views

The Customer is not Always Right [closed]

This issue has always been a philosophic issue to me, sense I have worked at McDonalds for the last six years of my life. On minute one of my first day of training, I was told "the customer is always ...
0
votes
5answers
143 views

How to prove: (P v (P ^ Q)) iff P

How to prove (P v (P ^ Q)) ≡ P? I am not sure how to get rid of proposition Q. I am allowed to use Leibniz and apply Substitution. I already came across most calculation rules in the book: ...
6
votes
3answers
863 views

In what sense are proofs just arguments that convince us, not arguments that establish truth?

In mathematics and logic, it seems that once a proof of some theorem is discovered, then it is taken to be "absolute truth" within the axiomatic system from which it was derived. My question is: are ...
-1
votes
2answers
194 views

If there is anything that could behave like a god, is it then a real god?

Let's assume that the our universe's physics allows time travel. This is my main assumption! Let's further assume that there is an quite intelligent, invulnerable being, that found a way to achieve ...
1
vote
1answer
127 views

Showing b=a from a=b in Fitch Style System

I'm in the middle of completing a proof, and need to show that b=a. I already have a=b. I think this should be trivial, however, I cannot find a way to do it inside the system. Using the programs ...
1
vote
2answers
76 views

How are 'proof of inexistence' and 'proof of impossibility of existence' different?

What is the difference between proof of inexistence (A) and proof of impossibility of existence (B)? Does A implies B? Does B implies A? I know that there is a scientific axiom that says 'proof lies ...
3
votes
2answers
169 views

Is there such a thing as provability of provability?

Gödel says that there are true statements that can't be proved, given a sound axiomatic system. Does anyone says anything about the provability of the provability of statements? Is it still an open ...
6
votes
7answers
286 views

Evaluating proof of conspiracy theories is time consuming

It's established that the burden of proof rests on the party making a claim. The problem I find, is that for any conspiracy theory - the proponent can point to a multitude of conspiracy websites or ...
4
votes
1answer
136 views

Is it possible to show that something does not exist?

I am aware that I could show that something does not exist with the knowledge of an implication. If B is true if A exists, then A does not exist if B is false But if we have no implications, is it ...
2
votes
1answer
166 views

Prooving ( ∃x Fx ∨ ∃x ~Fx) from no premises

I have a proof problem which I am stuck on. { } ⊢ ( ∃x Fx ∨ ∃x ~Fx) I already figured it out in order to get a∨b, I will have to do ~a→b or ~b→a. However, I have absolutely no idea how to get to ...
2
votes
2answers
296 views

Prove P v ~P using most basic rules?

Is there a way to prove P v ~P in basic inference rules? I can't think of where to start because nothing applies to this. I was thinking about usinig Conditional proof, but I don't know what should I ...
0
votes
0answers
53 views

What are Takeuti oridnal diagrams and how do they describe numbers?

I understand chiefly from writings of Solomon Feferman that Gaisi Takeuti invented ordinal diagrams for This is the following one line answer from Wikipedia: Takeuti (ordinal diagrams): Takeuti ...
3
votes
3answers
122 views

Can we add to PA a new predicate T such that for every sentence A of the old vocabulary the new theory proves T(Godel numeric number of A) iff A

I am new to logic but I believe this is not a difficult problem, yet I am still soo confused, and the reason for that is because there are so many gaps in my knowledge or maybe I have overlooked so ...
3
votes
8answers
257 views

I've confounded myself with this formal logic “proof”

Let "r" mean "it's raining" and "s" mean "it's snowing." "->" is "implies"; "V" is "or" (inclusive); "~" is "not"; "^" is "and" Here's the "proof": (1) (r->s)V(s->r) is true because it's a ...
-2
votes
4answers
419 views

What can suffice as a scientific proof for God? to what domain can such a proof belong to? [closed]

"Scientific" theories require proof, and there are certain guidelines and standards for the proofs to be acceptable to the "scientific" community in that domain (Algebra, Computer Science, etc.). ...
5
votes
1answer
127 views

Establishing Incompletenes of Modal LPC

In Hughes and Cresswell A New Introduction to Modal Logic (1996 ed.) page 271, they attempt to establish the incompleteness of the system K + G1 + BF (where K is L(P->Q)->(LP->LQ), G1 is MLP->LMP, and ...
2
votes
2answers
222 views

Negative facts and truths

I know Russell and Wittgenstein argued about negative truths. It is easy to prove the existence of some property provided there is considerable empirical evidence for its existence, but what if we are ...
4
votes
2answers
566 views

Origin of the idea that something can't be proved, only disproved

Does anyone know if the idea that something can't be proved, only disproved has a specific origin? I often hear it and would like to make a reference to it in a term paper I'm writing. Is it from the ...