0

Is the premise really enough to prove this?

Improve this question
2
  • You may need to rewrite the premises. The way you wrote them looks either copied wrong or it is very unclear. To ask questions you should be more specific with the rules you ate allowed to use. There are different proof systems not just one. Looks like you must make assumptions to solve your proof. With assumptions many things can be proven.
    – Logikal
    Oct 18, 2020 at 14:50
  • 2
    Yes, it is.......
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Oct 18, 2020 at 15:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Yep!

The Material implication A->B is equivalent to ¬AvB. So, ¬A suffices to show that ¬AvB, and A->B, and hence that (A->B)vC

Improve this answer
1
  • thanks, corrected!
    – Paul Ross
    Oct 18, 2020 at 15:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .