Questions tagged [fitch]

Frederic Brenton Fitch (1908 – 1987) was an American logician who taught at Yale. He invented the Fitch-style for natural deduction. He is also famous for the paradox of knowability. The tag may also refer to natural deduction proof environments in Fitch-style calculus for giving and checking proofs.

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
-2 votes
2 answers
114 views

I've been working on this for way too long :/

I've made a lot of progress on the proof below, but I am stuck on the last steps where I need to add existential quantifiers back in: ¬∃x ∃y Smaller(x,y) For context, I'm a logic novice, but I'm ...
user avatar
1 vote
0 answers
42 views

Assume: (C∧D)∨(¬C∧D); Prove: C↔D

Is it possible to prove this formally in fitch? I found that when C is false and D is true the conclusion is false while the premise is true.
user avatar
-1 votes
1 answer
54 views

Trying to do proof for ~(A->B) |- A^~B by Fitch Style proof. with Condition do not use de Morgan's law [closed]

Need help to Proof ~(A->B) :- A ^ ~B I was following William Rose proof from 1 to 33. but I am stuck on this.
user avatar
-1 votes
1 answer
77 views

Fitch proofs help?

I'm new to logic and can see how to write these out informally, but need some help seeing how they should be translated into formal proofs in Fitch.
user avatar
  • 1
2 votes
1 answer
77 views

Why is the use of the ND rule ∃E not correct in this proof?

Is there anyone who could explain to me why these errors occur? It seems to me the rule was used properly.
user avatar
0 votes
1 answer
45 views

Question about proving a set that is quantificationally inconsistent in PD+ (Finished the proof but want it to be checked)

Does ∃x(Nx & ~Nx) contradiction itself? Is there an error in my proof? Thank you
user avatar
-1 votes
2 answers
85 views

Fitch Proof help please

I think I got it, could you take a look, please.
user avatar
-1 votes
1 answer
89 views

Help with Fitch formal proof?

I'm having trouble solving this formal proof in Fitch. I've put together most of it, but I think I need to use disjunction elim(?) at some point and am having trouble doing that.
user avatar
  • 1
-1 votes
2 answers
105 views

How do I prove ∀x(A(x) -> B(x)) from ~∃x(A(x) ^ ~B(x)) using a fitch proof? [closed]

What would the formal fitch proof for this be? This question came up in my practice problems and I'm really stuck on how to proceed. I'm assuming that you start with an assumption, but I can't figure ...
user avatar
0 votes
0 answers
41 views

Is the included derivation feasible? If so, would my proof be correct?

The simple derivation seems correct and intuitive, and yet I feel as if something is off. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could double-check the provided formal proof. Thank you in advance ...
user avatar
  • 63
0 votes
1 answer
82 views

How does one prove (A->B)vC from the premise ~A? [closed]

Is the premise really enough to prove this?
user avatar
-1 votes
1 answer
81 views

How to prove the following arguments [closed]

I'm trying to do a bunch of proofs to get better at them but it seems like I need some help with negation. Can anyone who has time prove the following arguments? I would really appreciate it! ¬(P ∧ ¬Q)...
user avatar
  • 9
-2 votes
1 answer
40 views

Validity of the Definiton of the Conditional [closed]

Can a proof for Premise (P→Q) ... Goal (¬P∨Q) be derived using only the following rules? Conjunction Introduction Conjunction Elimination Left Conjunction Elimination Right Disjunction Introduction ...
user avatar
-1 votes
2 answers
227 views

Question about fitch 6.19 proving A or C from premises A or B and -B or C

How to prove A or C from premises A or B and -B or C. Am using fitch and have been stuck on this for an hour
user avatar
-1 votes
2 answers
281 views

How to prove A<—>not A

So basically there are no premises, but the file I have received to start this problem has a contradiction symbol as step one. I’m not sure if this was a mistake or purposeful, and if it was ...
user avatar
0 votes
2 answers
397 views

fitch proof chapter 13 (ex. 13.29) [closed]

how to proof exercise 13.29 without using taut con
user avatar
-1 votes
2 answers
247 views

Logic – Deduction in Tarski's World (Fitch/LPL 13.22) [closed]

I am trying to use existential elimination to derive Brillig(a) & Tove(a). how would I do this? I have tried to do separate sub proofs to prove both Brillig(a) & Tove(a) but that doesn't work ...
user avatar
0 votes
2 answers
119 views

Complex Fitch exercise to prove ∀x.r(x) [closed]

Assume a language with the object constant a and the function constant s. Given r(a), ∀x.(p(x) ⇒ r(s(x))), ∀x.(q(x) ⇒ r(s(x))), and ∀x.(r(x) ⇒ p(x) ∨ q(x)), use the Fitch system with Linear Induction ...
user avatar
-2 votes
1 answer
44 views

Fitch Question, Please help! [closed]

Q ∧ S (Q ∧ ¬P) → ¬R Q → ¬P (S ∧ T) → (P ∨ R) The goal is:¬T
user avatar
  • 1
1 vote
2 answers
159 views

fitch proof. P v Q Q→ ¬ R ¬ P ¬ R → ¬ S GOAL: ¬ S

Need help exercise using the FITCH program format. I'm stuck on where to start. The following 4 steps must be used to prove the goal. P v Q Q→ ¬ R ¬ P ¬ R → ¬ S GOAL: ¬ S Now I know: ¬ P and P v Q ...
user avatar
-1 votes
1 answer
87 views

Trouble with fitch and the use of existential elimination rule [closed]

I am wondering why fitch is not allowing me to use existential elimination for this final step
user avatar
-1 votes
2 answers
122 views

Given the premises ∀x.(p(x) ⇒ q(x)) and ∀x.(q(x) ⇒ r(x)), use the Fitch system to prove the conclusion ∀x.(p(x) ⇒ r(x))

I'm not able to move forward from step 4. I've tried Implication Introduction applied to 3 and 4 but nothing happens, any help is much appreciated.
user avatar
-1 votes
1 answer
145 views

Solving a proof with Fitch

I'm working on an assignment and I'm stuck on this proof. I feel like I'm on the right track but I can't find the way to prove the goal. B ^ D (B^¬A) → ¬C B → ¬A (D^E)→ (A v C) GOAL: ¬E
user avatar
-1 votes
1 answer
198 views

Use the Fitch system to prove the tautology (p ∨ ¬p). Stalled for days (NOT duplicated)

First of all, please don't close this question cause I don't get the explanation given in: Use the Fitch system to prove the tautology (p ∨ ¬p) I have been trying to solve this exercise for days ...
user avatar
  • 1
0 votes
0 answers
49 views

Use the Fitch system to prove the tautology (p ∨ ¬p). Stalled for days [duplicate]

I'm having trouble solving this one. I've been stuck in step 9 for days now. Any help is very much appreciated.
user avatar
  • 1
0 votes
0 answers
114 views

fitch arrow proof

using the FITCH program and the FITCH derivation rules you should make a proof or derivation of C7 from P5 through P11. P5: ∀x∀y(StrongPref(x,y)→ ¬StrongPref(y,x)) P6: ∀x∀y∀z((StrongPref(x,y)∧...
user avatar
  • 1
0 votes
2 answers
114 views

How to prove (A v ¬ B), (¬ A v C), (¬ C → B) therefore (¬ D v C)

My idea is to use disjunction elimination on (¬ A v C)to obtain C, and then use disjunction introduction to obtain (¬ D v C), but I'm having a hard time obtaining C.
user avatar
0 votes
1 answer
404 views

Complete a formal proof of ~(~A&~B) from A in as few lines as possible

Prove ~(~A&~B) from A in as few lines as possible. ~ = negation & = conjunction v = disjunction | = line in a subproof Here's what I have: A - Premise |~A - Assume |~B ...
user avatar
-1 votes
3 answers
105 views

How to prove H → M ¬H → ¬M prove H↔M?

I'm using the program Fitch and I need to make a formal proof for this: H → M ¬H → ¬M Prove: H↔M Any ideas on how to do so?
user avatar
-2 votes
1 answer
568 views

Language, Proof and Logic Exercise 14.13 (Fitch)

Having trouble proving this. I know how to prove the first conjunct of the conclusion, but not the second one. Picture shown is the attempt proof of the second conjunct (rules haven't been added yet). ...
user avatar
-1 votes
1 answer
803 views

Language, Proof, and Logic 14.11 Fitch Proof

Been stuck on this question for awhile now and I just don't know how to get Cube(x) so that I can use ^ intro with Cube(x) and ∀y (Cube(y) → y = a) and then use ∃ intro to get the conclusion. This is ...
user avatar
-5 votes
2 answers
121 views

how to prove ‘¬∃xP(x)→(P(a)→Q(a))’ from no premises? fitch

I am totally lost on how to do this... can anyone help? What does it mean? I tried to understand what it means before proof but am totally clueless
user avatar
0 votes
2 answers
870 views

Fitch Proof Exercise 6.20

I am working on a proof and am stuck on a step. I am not sure why I cannot assume the negation of B. Is it not allowed or am I missing something? Thank you]1
user avatar
-1 votes
4 answers
469 views

Language Proof & Logic 8.31 Fitch Proof

Been working on this one question for the past hours and I can't ever seem to get the last step working. Any help would be appreciated!
user avatar
-1 votes
2 answers
167 views

How can I prove the law of excluded third (p ∨ ¬p)) using Fitch?

Good day. I do not quite understand how I can get ~~p after the 11th line. According to the proof of the law itself (and all reasonable logic) I should get it, and then simplify the expression - but ...
user avatar
0 votes
0 answers
49 views

How would I go about proving P>Q from the premise (notP v Q)? [duplicate]

A similar question had already been asked, but the solution involves steps I am unfamiliar with. in class, we have only been exposed to intro and elim rules, as well as contradiction rules. Here is ...
user avatar
  • 29
-1 votes
3 answers
1k views

Fitch Proof - Logic LPL 6.31

I am trying to complete the following proof in Fitch but am completely clueless on how to approach it. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks
user avatar
0 votes
1 answer
261 views

De Morgan's Law Formal Proof [duplicate]

Does anyone know how to do this without the use of addition rules? We have not covered that in class, and all the info I can find online suggests that as a solution. Thanks]1
user avatar
  • 29
2 votes
1 answer
279 views

Contrapositive Fitch Proof

I can't seem to figure out how to get past this step. Any suggestions?
user avatar
  • 21
1 vote
2 answers
238 views

How to use use the Fitch System to prove (¬p ⇒ q) ⇒ ((¬p ⇒ ¬q) ⇒ p)?

I'm getting a bit stuck in a tailspin on this one. I'm quite new to logic. I'm not sure how or when we use negation to get P. How then does that connect to (¬p ⇒ q) ⇒ ((¬p ⇒ ¬q)?
user avatar
0 votes
2 answers
155 views

Given premise ~(P↔Q) how can one derive (~P↔Q) using Fitch?

Given premise ~(P↔Q) derive (~P↔Q) using Fitch-style natural deduction. I thought of simplifying the premise but I am still not able to find an answer. Can someone please help me?
user avatar
0 votes
1 answer
111 views

How do you prove (p => q => r) => (p => q) => p => r using the Fitch system?

I'm quite new to logic. Thank you for taking the time to review this post. I tried the following and got to the conclusion I wanted but I was never able to prove the statement.
user avatar
2 votes
1 answer
330 views

Fitch Proof - Arrow's logic of preferences

I've been stumped on this one question in particular for several days now and I'm hoping to get some help on where I'm going wrong. Given the following premises: ∀x∀y(StrongPref(x,y)→ ¬StrongPref(y,...
user avatar
  • 29
-3 votes
1 answer
286 views

Fitch Arrow Proofs [closed]

Using the FITCH program and the FITCH derivation rules you should make a proof or derivation of C10 from P5 through P11. P5: ∀x∀y(StrongPref(x,y)→ ¬StrongPref(y,x)) P6: ∀x∀y∀z((StrongPref(x,y)∧...
user avatar
0 votes
2 answers
90 views

Fitch Question Please Help Me [closed]

I'm having trouble understanding writing out a proof. The proof I'm trying to work with is : [![enter image description here][1]][1] How do I reach this goal? Which rules do I use and with which ...
user avatar
1 vote
2 answers
113 views

Fitch Questions Please Help Me

I'm having trouble understanding writing out a proof. The proof I'm trying to work with is : How do I reach this goal? Which rules do I use and with which support steps to each rule (proofs to prove ...
user avatar
-1 votes
2 answers
265 views

Fitch Proof Help

I'm having some trouble solving this proof in Fitch. How do the universals switch place from the premise to the goal? There is no negation in the goal so negation introduction is not the way to go, I ...
user avatar
0 votes
2 answers
245 views

Fitch Question Help

I'm having trouble understanding quantifiers in proofs. The proof I'm working with is : ¬∀x Tet(x) -- Premise ¬∀x (Tet(x) ∧ Medium(x)) -- Goal How do I reach this goal and also get to the goal ...
user avatar
1 vote
2 answers
110 views

Structure of an if and only if proof

I am trying to get this proof to work out and so far I feel like I have the first part right but I'm stuck on how to get the A→B part.
user avatar
  • 37
2 votes
2 answers
202 views

Solving a proof in which the goal is the negation of a variable in Fitch

I'm working on an assignment and I'm stuck on this proof. I feel like I'm on the right track but I can't find the way to prove the goal. A ^ B (A ^ ~C) --> ~D A -> ~C (B ^ E) --> (C v D) ~E I ...
user avatar