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

0
votes
2answers
63 views

The Customer is not Always Right

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 ...
6
votes
3answers
742 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
vote
2answers
141 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
48 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
57 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
144 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 ...
4
votes
7answers
212 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 ...
2
votes
1answer
88 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
150 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
148 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
31 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 ...
1
vote
2answers
59 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 ...
2
votes
3answers
134 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
312 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
114 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
152 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
291 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 ...
1
vote
2answers
251 views

How to check if this proof is valid?

I'm having some doubt if this proof is valid or invalid, especially regarding the line 4 derived from line 2. Do I need to change the letter in there? 1. (z)~Fz ∴ ~(z)Fz Using Indirect proof ...
5
votes
1answer
362 views

Does Descartes prove that he isn't dreaming?

I had a midterm question where this was relevant, essentially it was: "Assuming you're an atheist, how would you prove to Descartes that your last vacation wasn't a dream?" I put that since ...
5
votes
3answers
661 views

On validity of Modus Ponens

I am having trouble understanding what defines Entailment operator. On Mathoverflow I posted this question on what I perceive to be paradox of entailment. Consider: Modus Ponens: P therefore Q P ...
7
votes
10answers
726 views

How to prove you are an atheist?

I've been reading a conversation between two individuals - A claiming to be atheist and B asking him to prove it, since B does not believe that A is saying the truth and can't be sure if A is really ...
4
votes
3answers
333 views

Are there any known deficits of “relevant logic”?

The principle of explosion is the law of classical logic and similar systems of logic, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. Some early formal systems like Frege's ...
9
votes
6answers
421 views

Claims that we know (virtually) nothing - can they be refuted?

Here's an argument that I've heard a number of times from friends and on the Internet: "The ratio of what we know about the universe to what we have yet to discover is so small - it is therefore ...
2
votes
1answer
167 views

Underlying logical structure behind Descartes' Ontological argument?

Quoting SEP: Version A: Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary ...
-1
votes
2answers
323 views

Is there something in the real world that cannot be proved nor disproved? [closed]

It is often said that you cannot prove nor disprove God. People who bring forward this kind of reasoning often try to persuade you that there is a kind of balance, a truce; you can't prove your point ...
-2
votes
1answer
281 views

Does the law of excluded middle follow the law of excluded middle?

Example is that the word unknown is not unknown so it doesn't define itself. Similarly French is not French, it's in English, and "long" is not long and only 4 letters short. That's by example my ...
2
votes
3answers
2k views

Is illogical = not logical?

I think law of excluded middle makes sense to mean that a statement should be either logical or illogical but in this case I don't assume "not logical" = "illogical" since the author didn't say ...
5
votes
6answers
367 views

What does it mean that a claim is a claim of nonexistence?

This question has devolved into a discussion. As I understand the discussion, everything is revolving around the veracity of statement Nonexistence can never be proven. and on what exactly ...
29
votes
12answers
3k views

Does a negative claimant have a burden of proof?

I have often heard it said that the burden of proof is on the positive claimant but not on the one making a negative claim. A person claiming, "God exists" has a burden of proof but not a person ...
12
votes
2answers
1k views

What is the difference between “reductio ad absurdum” and “proof by contradiction”?

What is the exact difference between reductio ad absurdum and proof by contradiction? Wikipedia says: Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a ...
7
votes
4answers
390 views

Are there any potential flaws in the definition of validity as “provable or falsifiable”?

I have made an argument in another thread that a proposition must be provable or falsifiable to be valid. Are there any flaws in this definition of validity? What might be a potential counter-argument ...
-2
votes
4answers
198 views

Are the limitations of language proof against the divinity of holy books? [closed]

Many religions like Islam and Hinduism have holy books(the Quran and the Vedas, respectively) which claim some kind of superhuman origin. However, are the limitations of languages then counter to ...
34
votes
8answers
2k views

Can you prove anything in philosophy?

I don't understand philosophy very well, and so I am wondering whether you can "prove" anything in philosophy. It always seems you can go a layer down, and find another question, almost endlessly ...