I am stuck on this natural derivation problem. Although I have been able to find solutions on this forum, I am wondering if it is possible to to solve the natural deduction without using ⊥.

Thanks in advance to whoever that can help me.

New contributor
Azmlyte is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
  • If you do not have the symbol available, you must have a corresponding rule to manage contradictions: use it. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 13 at 6:55
  • Sorry, I am still new to this. What do you mean by having a "corresponding rule"? – Azmlyte Feb 13 at 6:57
  • 1
    Natural Deduction is made of rules: if you do not know them why asking about "natural deduction" ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 13 at 7:20
  • Can you use the equivalence between "A implies B" and "A or not B?" – Josiah Feb 13 at 8:28
  • Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site. Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the checkmark to reward the contributor. – J D Feb 13 at 18:31

Your Answer

Azmlyte is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.