0

I am very new to this and I can't figure out the steps to prove that these reasonings are valid. Thank you for your help.

p
¬r
p → (q→r)
___________             
¬q

(¬p ∨ ¬q) → r
p
q
__________             
¬r 

p → (r ∨ q) 
(q ∨ s ) → t
r → s
p ∨ r
__________             
t 

closed as off-topic by Eliran, Graham Kemp, Jishin Noben, Alexander Gegg, curiousdannii Apr 7 at 7:26

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question is missing context. Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Eliran, Graham Kemp, Jishin Noben, Alexander Gegg, curiousdannii
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • How have you tried to show these? It might also help to know what textbook they came from. If you do not have a proof checker, you might try this one: proofs.openlogicproject.org – Frank Hubeny Mar 25 at 22:40
  • This is unanswerable unless you specify the rules you're allowed to use. Also please say what you have tried. – Eliran Mar 25 at 23:55
  • I don't have any specification about the rules, I guess all rules are allowed ? – MMM Mar 26 at 0:01
1

Hint for 1, using Natural Deduction rules.

1) p --- premise

2) ¬r --- premise

3) p → (q → r) --- premise

4) q --- assumed [a]

5) (q → r) --- from 1) and 3) by (→E)

6) r --- from 4) and 5) by (→E)

7) contradiction with 2) and 6)

8) ¬q --- from 4) and 7), by (⊥E), discharging assumption [a].


Regarding 2, check it with truth table.


Regarding 3, use "nested" (∨E).

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