How to prove the following questions?
(a) p from assumption ¬(p → q)
(b) ¬¬p → p from no assumptions.
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
For (a) you need (¬E) rule.
First, assume both p and ¬p and use the contradiction to get $q$.
Then, use (→I) to get p → q. Now you have a new contradiction.
For more details, you have to specify the set of rules you are allowed to use. See e.g. Natural Deduction.
For the second one here is how you would use a proof checker to enter the problem and then attempt a solution:
TFL (Truth Functional Logic) is checked. There are no assumptions so nothing is placed in the premises box. The conclusion is entered.
Then press "CREATE PROBLEM". The problem is set up for you.
I start the first line with an assumption "~~P". On the second line I use double negative elimination (DNE). Between lines 1 and 2 I have the desired conditional and write that on line 3 eliminating the assumption on line 1.
The rules you need to use may be different.
Here are the associated resources for more information:
P. D. Magnus, Tim Button with additions by J. Robert Loftis remixed and revised by Aaron Thomas-Bolduc, Richard Zach, forallx Calgary Remix: An Introduction to Formal Logic, Winter 2018. http://forallx.openlogicproject.org/