# Tagged Questions

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

179 views

Yesterday I was talking to one of my mathematics professor regarding the notion of proof in general (whatever the word "general" means to the reader). In short my claim was, We can only be ...
57 views

### A and ~A in logical proof

In my logic class last semester, we went over proofs with the rules of induction and replacement. In a couple of the exercises, I noticed something. In each of the exercises in question, all of the ...
37 views

### What are some active areas of research in proof theory?

Is there any research activity going on in the field of proof theory today? If so, what are some of the most active areas, what types of questions do they deal with, and where can I go to find out ...
154 views

### Fitch Formal Logic Help 6.26

6.26 Premises: A v (B ^C) ~B v ~C v D Goal: A v D Prove it formally without using DeMorgan's Law
203 views

### What is the relation between proof in mathematics and observation in physics?

Recently in his 2015 Hirzebruch Lecture in Bonn, Arthur Jaffe re-amplified his famous perspective that finding proof in mathematics is analogous to making experimental observation in physics. In ...
56 views

### Logic proof on biconditional [closed]

(P → Q) ↔ ( ¬P ∨ Q) is the goal, there's no premises I start with 2.|_ P -> Q.................. 3.||_ P...................... 4., _ ~P.................... 5., |....................RULE: | INTRO 3,...
966 views

### Is any aspect of the supernatural testable? What level of proof is possible for the supernatural?

Assume the supernatural does exist, and consists of beings/forces that can interact with our natural universe in ways that are contrary to the natural laws of this universe (at least as we know them). ...
120 views

### Can something “count” as TRUE without support by logic and empirical data?

I was in an online debate and had this statement presented to me. I would note further that your apparent positivism rests on what is logically a faith claim - specifically, the unproveble claim ...
53 views

### Using the conception of 'reliable, unchanging' does 'truth' exist?

An 'archaic' definition for TRUE,TRUTH implies constancy, reliability, unchanging, fidelity. Using this concept of TRUTH is the following valid? There exists either that which is TRUE or that which ...
39 views

### Prove (P → Q) ↔ (¬Q → ¬P) using conditional elimination and negation introduction. [closed]

I'm trying to prove that (P → Q) ↔ (¬Q → ¬P) using Fitch. I know I have to prove two subproofs. 1) P → Q 2)¬Q → ¬P
101 views

### What exactly are the identity rules in logic?

In first order logic, I have read there are a couple of identity rules and I have a question for example: If you have "a=b" does it mean that I can also write it as "b=a"? Is it true the one-way or ...
677 views

### Does the famous Descartes quote “dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum” suggests secure knowledge of ones existence?

After a discussion about the "difficulties to distinguish knowledge from faith" someone replied to me that the quote implies faith because it uses the word "think". But as it is generally understood: ...
81 views

### Where can I learn about the philosophy behind mathematical and logical proofs?

I'm looking for something that dives into the philosophical idea of a "proof," and explains how the subjects of mathematics and logic deal with it. Does anyone have any book or article recommendations ...
198 views

### Does predicate logic have truth tables?

As I recall in propositional logic, it was possible to draw truth tables for the arguments such as for: (P ∨ R) [I live in Paris or I live in Rome] Therefore, (~P ⊃ R) [If I don't live in Paris ...
104 views

### How does this propositional proof make sense?

How does the following proof of argument is valid and makes sense? 1. (R • C) [It is raining and It is cloudy] 2. ~R [It is not raining] Therefore, S [It is snowing] According to proof by ...
850 views

### Proving De Morgan's laws for quantifiers

One of De Morgan's laws state that ¬∃x P(x) is equivalent to ∀x ¬P(x), but how would one go about formally proving this? Numerous attempts to find a solution have been futile, even proofwiki.org does ...
104 views

### Subjective Proofs

I've been having thoughts for a while about what constitutes a proof. Formal logic usually consists of incredibly detailed steps and, as such, is usually not utilized that often in everyday life. ...
609 views

### Given P ∨ ¬ P prove (P → Q) → ((¬ P → Q) → Q) by natural deduction

I am very new to proof and logic and I would really appreciate a rundown of this proof. I use a program called Fitch to construct my proofs. I understand there are two types of proofs. Direct ...
35 views

### Multiple universal quantifiers in an argument

Consider the argument ∀x∀y((S(x,a)∧ S(a,y))→S(x,y)), ∀x¬S(x,x) ├ ∀x(S(x,a) → ¬S(a,x)) My approach to formally proving this was to first eliminate ∀x and use x0 as the free variable. Then ...
45 views

### Proving the negation of universal quantification

Consider the following argument ∀(R(x) ∨ S(x)), ∃x(¬R(x)) ⊦ ¬∀x(¬S(x)) My strategy is to try and proof that ∀x(¬S(x)) is a contradiction, and therefore ¬∀x(¬S(x)) must be true. My solution so far ...
468 views

### Why is this argument valid?

Suppose I have this simple argument: ( P ⊃ Q ) R P Therefore, Q Here's the truth table I made in an excel worksheet: As you can see this comes out valid but in reality it isn't valid ...
1k views

### The difference between argument, inference, deduction and proof?

I am trying to sort out the difference between argument, inference, deduction and proof. First, let's look at the distinction between argument and inference (if there is one). This online source ...
145 views

### How to deal with ¬∃ (negated existential quantifier) in a proof?

I need to prove that the following premises lead to a contradiction. ∀x (P(x) → Q(x)) ∃x ¬Q(x) ¬∃x (¬P(x)) A couple of things are confusing me. Does the first premise say that if x is a P then ...
296 views

### Logic – Deduction in Tarski's World (Fitch/LPL 13.36)

I am working on proving the following question: | ∀x [Dodec(x) → LeftOf(x, a)] | ∀x [Tet(x) → RightOf(x, a)] |––– | ∀x [SameCol(x, a) → Cube(x)] The question has the following rules: […] give a ...
920 views

### What qualifies something as mathematics?

What classifies something as math? Is "math" simply performing operations with a certain set of axioms in mind? Is "math" anything that involves numbers? What about mathematical logic? Google ...
149 views

### What's the difference (if any) between demonstration and description?

How do philosophers of various schools* explain the difference (if any) between demonstration and mere description? Are they synonymous, or are they different? How so? My first impressions: To ...
228 views

### Are there rules for dealing with self-reference “paradoxes” in logic?

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, ...
142 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 ...
188 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 ...
88 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, ...
107 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, ...
327 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 "...
205 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 ...
232 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 ...
56 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 ...
162 views

### Truth Tables and Venn Diagrams: Prove Contingent statement are consistent [closed]

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.
300 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 ...
166 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 ...
64 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 well-...
27 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 ...
2k 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 ...
110 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?
244 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)?
326 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. ...
424 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 ...
186 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 ...
140 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 ...
324 views

### The blur between proof and evidence [closed]

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, ...