1

My thought process:

- This derivation has no premises.
- The desired conclusion is a conditional, therefore assume 
  the antecedent and derive the conditional.

What I have so far:

1   1) (AvB) -> C   P

I don't know what to do next since there's no easy way to use MP(Modus Ponens) from there.

  • What derivation rules are allowed? Natural deduction? – Eliran Oct 16 '16 at 22:04
  • P, Add, Simp, Conj, MP, PC, RAA @EliranH – K.Wong Oct 16 '16 at 22:07
  • @K.Wong in your comment, you say MP can be used ... in your question you say it can't ... – virmaior Oct 16 '16 at 22:35
  • @virmaior, in my comment I stated the rules that are ALLOWED. In my question, it is obvious you can't use MP since the rule states that "if we have the sentence A -> B, and we have A, then we can use MP to derive B." We have the sentence "A -> B: (AvB) -> C" but we don't have "A: (AvB)." Therefore the rule MP cannot be used yet. – K.Wong Oct 16 '16 at 22:42
  • @K.Wong okay, I've edited your language to make that clearer... we do from time to time get derivation questions that do not allow MP, and I read your question as saying that. – virmaior Oct 16 '16 at 23:59
1

Given that your goal is ⊢ ((AvB) -> C) -> (A -> C) , you have two different ways of getting there:

(A) Assume (AvB) -> C assume the left side of your conditional and get to your end point via CP

(B) Assume ~ ( ((AvB) -> C) -> (A -> C) ) negate the entire of your object then do RAA]

In this case, I think you've made the right choice:

  1. | (AvB) -> C) P

To get to A -> C we can again:

(A) assume the left side and CP

(B) negate the entire expression and RAA

In this case, it's a lot easier to negate -- since we can use addition to show that the negation we make is invalid:

  1. | | ~( A -> C) P
  2. | | | A P
  3. | | | A v B Add 3
  4. | | | C MP 1,4
  5. | | A -> C CP 3-5
  6. | A -> C RAA 2-6
  7. ⊢ ((AvB) -> C) -> (A -> C)

(If your proof system requires it, you may need to:

(1) repeat the assumption at line 1 before line 5.

(2) add a conjunction after 7 of 4 and 7 to show the contradiction).

|improve this answer|||||
  • What are these lines " | ", that are between the numbering and the lettering? – K.Wong Oct 17 '16 at 5:35
  • Layer of assumption. If there were no lines, those would be assumptions given in the problem. (so line 8 has no lines, line 1 has the new assumption (= one), line 2 has a new assumption (= two), line 3 has a new assumption (= three), lines 4-5 still have three, line 6 discharges one by CP (=two), line 7 discharges one by RAA (=one), line discharges one by CP (=zero)). – virmaior Oct 17 '16 at 7:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.