Questions tagged [deduction]

The tag has no usage guidance.

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
0
votes
0answers
36 views

Clarifications on 1) Modus Ponens, 2) Modus Tollens, 3) Inductive, 4) Incomplete based on examples

My second lecture on Hypothetico-Deductive methods (based on Popper's falsification theory). In the class, we were given the following examples. We had to classify which examples belong to 1) Modus ...
-1
votes
1answer
133 views

Does the Law Of Excluded Middle Apply to the Principle Of Identity and Non Contradiction? [closed]

This argument will seem confusing, precisely because it observes the laws of identity being subject to equivocation. If this is kept in mind, the following should make more sense and explain why the ...
0
votes
1answer
32 views

Reasoning for Inductive inference?

Just out of curiosity, if I should replace the deductive inference related questions to inductive inference, then which are true? Inductive inferences rearrange current knowledge in such a way that ...
1
vote
0answers
37 views

Reasoning for deductive inference?

I got a quiz today in my classroom. I need to say True or False to the following: Deductive inferences are typically based on unfounded assumptions. For the valid deductive inference, the conclusion ...
0
votes
2answers
42 views

What are some key differences between an argument in logic and a theory in mathematics?

Both are composed from rules and assumptions which enable us to deduce other inevitable truths that results from these rules and assumptions, right?
0
votes
1answer
54 views

Are there rules for the following in the Open Logic Project's proof checker?

I'm using http://proofs.openlogicproject.org/ but can't find out what the translation of the rules are. I'm new at this, so when I try to make proofs, I know what I want the justification to be (which ...
0
votes
2answers
58 views

How to solve this natural deduction problem?

This one is driving me crazy. I don't understand most keys for de morgan, modus ponens, etc, so please abbreviate if possible? EX: DM, MP, SIMP, HS, Conj, Imp (material Implication). Thank you anybody ...
1
vote
2answers
198 views

Confusion between deductive and inductive reasoning definitions

The following arguments is always given as a classic example to deductive reasoning: All men are mortal. (First premise) Socrates is a man. (Second premise) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. ...
1
vote
1answer
37 views

Quick question on discharging assumptions

Could someone explain conceptually what the consequences are of assumptions NOT being discharged in a natural deduction ? Suppose the objective is to establish a claim of the form : 'If A,then B.' ...
2
votes
2answers
151 views

What is a natural deduction proof from ~(A↔B) to ~(A→B)?

It feels intuitively correct, but I cannot work out how to prove it. I would appreciate any help.
0
votes
1answer
210 views

What is the difference between the resolution rule and the elimination in natural deduction?

I understand that elimination is: p v q ¬q then p and resolution is: q1 v q2 v q3...qn ¬q1 v q2 v q3...qn then q2 v q3...qn I see no difference, but my teacher is telling us don't use the ...
-1
votes
1answer
125 views

Tacit inferences?

Does anyone give a useful account of tacit inferences? I am interested in the psychological notion of inference here, and do not in the context focus upon the logical notions of validity and soundness....
5
votes
1answer
413 views

If turtles see everything, and nothing seen can see, does it follow that non-turtles exist?

Consider the following argument: Turtles see everything. Seeing is asymmetric (for the sake of argument). Therefore, something is not a turtle. I have problems symbolizing these statements. My ...
1
vote
2answers
105 views

Is deduction based on induction?

I'm wondering if deduction is in the end based on induction. The problem of induction discovered by the Scottish philosopher David Hume is quite well known. On the other hand, it's commonly supported ...
4
votes
3answers
211 views

Can all inductive arguments be written as deductive arguments?

Whenever I see inductive arguments being used, it seems as though they can be redone by simply making certain assumptions and rephrasing the argument as a deduction from those assumptions. For ...
0
votes
2answers
69 views

~(~P&Q) & ~(P&Q) : Prove ~Q

This must be proved using only negation, double neg.Intro, double negation Elimination, indirect proof, conj.Intro, and conj.Elim.
1
vote
2answers
650 views

How to get proof using proof editor and checker

How can I use http://proofs.openlogicproject.org/ or http://logic.tamu.edu/daemon.html to derive the given conclusion from the given premise: (∃x) ( Fx ∙ (y) (Fy → y = x) ) / (∃x) (y) (Fy ≡ y =...
1
vote
2answers
164 views

Does Hume reject the possibility of is-ought syllogisms?

Suppose the following syllogism: It is impossible for anyone to get X without him/her doing Y. It is possible to get X (by doing Y). I want to get X. Therefore I ought to do Y. There is, very likely,...
1
vote
5answers
605 views

How do I operate with philosophers if I reject deductive reasoning?

Deductive reasoning is the one that takes premises for granted. I never do it. Therefore I never do deductive reasoning. Well, enough jokes. It is safe to assume that deductive reasoning never should ...
2
votes
5answers
147 views

Is there a single definition of truth?

Is there a single definition of truth in philosophy? Seeing multiple definitions has inclined me to believe that there is no proper definition of philosophy that everyone can agree on.
3
votes
3answers
1k views

Inductive and deductive arguments and mathematical induction

I started reading Paul Teller's A Modern Formal Logic Primer. In the first chapter, the book presents the inductive and deductive arguments with the following examples: The inductive argument: ...
1
vote
3answers
376 views

Justification of deductive reasoning

Is a justification of deductive reasoning possible? If so, please tell me how because whenever I try to form a justification of deductive reasoning I end up committing the fallacy of circularity.
1
vote
3answers
127 views

How can I prove ⊢(∀x)(Fx V ~Fx) with natural deduction?

⊢(∀x)(Fx V ~Fx) How can I prove this with natural deduction?
2
votes
3answers
224 views

Natural deduction proof help!

I've gone through about 40 natural deduction proofs in the past couple days, and mostly they are no problem. For some reason, I've been stuck on 1 tedious problem for an entire day. I just can't seem ...
3
votes
2answers
787 views

Does an implied premise mean a formal fallacy if used in deduction?

Let's just say we have an implied premise: 2.a Socrates is a philosopher (implied premise), but not explicit Then is the following a formal fallacy? Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. ...
2
votes
3answers
513 views

Deriving “(p.q) v (p.r) from ”p.(q v r)"?

I am new to logic. and here are my tryouts for deriving deriving "(p.q) v (p.r) from "p.(q v r)", and further I want to show that ”p.(q V r)” is equivalent to ”(p.q) V (p.r)”, by using natural ...
9
votes
2answers
747 views

Is there a deduction analog to the problem of induction?

Aren't deductive and inductive reasoning equally unjustified? So, inductive reasoning is going from specifics to general, whilst deductive reasoning is going from general to specific. But in deductive ...
2
votes
4answers
269 views

In fitch, S → (R ∨ P), P → (¬R → Q) ∴ S → (Q ∨ R)

Construct a proof for the argument: S → (R ∨ P), P → (¬R → Q) ∴ S → (Q ∨ R) I have gotten to the point in the illustration, but I am unable to figure out where to go from here. I get tricked up on ...
1
vote
2answers
236 views

Predicate logic proofs - how to split a disjunction bound by two quantifiers

I need to complete the following proof using only primitive rules (the introduction and elimination rules for each connective and quantifier). (∃x)(∀y)(Py ∨ Qx) ⊢ (∀y)Py ∨ (∃x)Qx I've only been able ...
1
vote
0answers
83 views

Is this a valid argument (using probability and uncertainties)?

If A, then B (probability of 0.6 that this is true) If B, then C (probability of 0.6 that this is true) A, Therefore C. I'm not sure whether C is probably true if A is true, or if the probability ...
5
votes
1answer
602 views

Why can't uniformity of nature (in principle) be proven deductively?

I've been reading about the problem of induction and I have trouble understanding the argument for nature's uniformity being impossible to prove deductively. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on ...
10
votes
3answers
1k views

Are “if smoke then fire” arguments deductive or inductive?

I'm new to philosophy and have a question regarding deductive vs. inductive reasoning: I'm told that "John ate a strange plant in the forest and got sick. Clearly, the plant made John sick." I ...
2
votes
3answers
202 views

Logic question regarding a logical truth

Is the following logically true? ∃x[Cube(x) →∀yCube(y)] I think that it is logically true. When translated into truth functional form we have: A→B. A truth table shows that it is not a tautology but ...
1
vote
2answers
303 views

Based on evolution, do we arrive at deductive principles inductively?

If our knowledge of deductive principles is a result of evolution... doesn't this mean that we arrive at deductive principles inductively? Assuming deductive principles are beneficial for survival, ...
3
votes
1answer
143 views

What are the rules for a zero-premise derivation involving disjunctions?

I'm having trouble with the following zero-premise deduction that involves two disjunctions: The solution seems simple, but I'm unsure of how to proceed with the two disjunctions. If it were just ...
2
votes
1answer
500 views

Is this an inductive or a deductive argument?

Two flowers of the same cultivar were planted in adjacent plots . The first was fertilized with Miracle-Gro and it flourished (2); The second was not and it din't(3) . Therefore , Miracle-Gro ...
2
votes
1answer
194 views

Quick logic deduction question

I have to provide a natural deduction derivation for: ¬∀xFx ⊢ ∃x¬Fx That´s what I got so far: 1.¬∀xFx 2.‖ ¬∃x¬Fx (Indirect proof hypothesis) 3.‖‖ ¬¬Fy (Indirect proof hypothesis 2) 4.‖‖ Fy (...
2
votes
2answers
467 views

Proof for the Rule of Absorption in Propositional Logic?

I know there is a "formal proof" for the "rule of absorption" that employs the "law of excluded middle". It is presented in Wikipedia (and I think it is Russell's): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
0
votes
3answers
211 views

Is this inductive or deductive?

The fact that we know we have a great great grandfather. Is the reasoning we use for this inductive or deductive?
3
votes
2answers
422 views

Implication Introduction formulated as a theorem?

While making a list of the rules of inference for my math students, I came across this list on Wikipedia: I noticed a pattern: for every introduction rule, there seems to be an elimination rule, and ...
0
votes
1answer
153 views

Is logic based on uncertainty the fundamental logic?

Most formal logics are based on certainty, but certainty is only one probability among others, so a logic based on uncertainty and probability should be considered as the fundamental logic from which ...
4
votes
4answers
279 views

How can one intuit that P → Q ≡ ¬P ∨ (P ∧ Q)?

I have not succeeded in intuiting P → Q ≡ ¬P ∨ Q in the sense of imagining how one would conjecture or divine the equivalence without any "foreknowledge" of ¬P ∨ Q to invoke formal proofs or truth ...
0
votes
3answers
316 views

Logical analysis of “Free will and god(s)” argument

Please evaluate the following argument strictly for formal logical validity. I am NOT interested in debating the content or in philosophical perspectives on the content. However, I AM interested in ...
1
vote
1answer
840 views

⊢ ((AvB) -> C) -> (A -> C) using simple derivation rules

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) -&...
2
votes
2answers
125 views

How to prove 1. ~(KvF) 2. ~F=>(KvC) 3. (GVC)=>~H / ~(KvH) using natural deduction

I need help with this question using the first 13 rules of inference. Here is what I have so far: ~(KvF) ~F=>(KvC) (GVC)=>~H / ~(KvH) ~Kv~F DM 1 ~Fv~K Com 5
4
votes
3answers
237 views

Question regarding logical fallacies

So I'm not sure whether the following statement is a logical fallacy but it seems to me like it is. If statement A is true then statement B must be true as well. Not sure if I properly constructed ...
1
vote
1answer
96 views

How to infer ¬Q when there seems to be no way to

Rule #1: No man shall hit another man. Rule #2: If someone breaks Rule #1, then Rule #1 does not apply to such a one. My specific question is: How can someone infer that Rule #1 does apply to him? ...
2
votes
7answers
2k views

Is the logic of this argument valid?

If God exists, it is rational for people to believe he exists without relying on facts: If God exists and he wanted to be known by people he would provide a means of knowing him. If God wanted as ...
3
votes
7answers
881 views

How do you prove that this is a tautology?

((p->q) and (r->s) and (p or r)) -> (q or s) How would you prove that this is a tautology? Using natural deduction? My attempt on this question is the following. Since a tautology means W entails ...
3
votes
1answer
2k views

If “All S is P” is true, does it contradict “No non-S is non-P”?

I have a problem I encountered in a logic textbook that I cannot figure out after multiple tries. Say we assume that "All S is P" is true. Does this allow us to conclude the truth value of "No Non-S ...