Questions tagged [proof]
Proof is a chain of reasoning using rules of inference, ultimately based on a set of axioms, that lead to a conclusion.
-1
votes
0answers
24 views
Language Proof and logic problem 16.31
With this problem, I can't seem to figure out why it isn't working out. If anyone has any advise it would be super helpful.
0
votes
1answer
50 views
Language Proof and logic Chapter 13 problem 31
I have been working on this problem for over an hour and I think I have simply missed something. I need some help. I don't see how this is supposed to work out
Here are the premises:
∀x ∀y[Likes(x,...
0
votes
0answers
34 views
Language proof and logic 15.16 [duplicate]
I don't know how to make the middle section work out please help
1
vote
2answers
89 views
If I saw UFOs, and I was of sound mind and body, does that give the right to say that it is true? [closed]
Around a year ago I saw some spectacular things in the skies above me, on three separate occasions. I believe I was of sound mind and what I saw really did exist.
Given that what I saw was so out-...
0
votes
2answers
58 views
Language proof and logic Chapter 15 question 21 how?
I'm really not understanding the set up of how to go about solving this problem any help is welcome
0
votes
2answers
90 views
Language proof and logic Chapter 15 question 16 help
I'm trying to go about solving this problem but I'm having problems even knowing how to approach it. Can someone help me to set it up?
Here is the premise: ∀x∀y(x ⊆ y ↔️ ∀z(z ∈ x ⟶ z ∈ y)
Here is ...
0
votes
2answers
63 views
language proof and logic chapter 13 question 49 Help
Premises:
∃xP(x)
∀x∀y((P(x)∧P(y)) → x = y)
Prove:
∃x(P(x)∧∀y(P(y) → y = x))
I've started it but the end is starting to get super muddy and not work out and I don't know where I went wrong.
0
votes
2answers
80 views
In Fitch, how does one prove “P” from the premise “(¬P ∨ Q)→P”?
I can't figure out how to prove that formally. Please, help!!
3
votes
4answers
1k views
How to prove ‘∃xP(x)’ from ‘¬∀x(P(x)→Q(x))’
What would a formal Fitch proof for this look like?
I am given ¬∀x(P(x)→Q(x)), and need to derive ∃xP(x) from it.
I started with this, but I don't know if I am doing the right thing, and where to go ...
1
vote
2answers
71 views
Fitch Proof by Contradiction help
Hi, I'm pretty new to writing formal proofs and I was wondering if I could get some help solving this question.
I've set up the problem and I was thinking of perhaps proving it by contradiction that ...
2
votes
2answers
35 views
Fitch Biconditional Proof Help?
Hi, I'm starting to learn formal proofs using Fitch, but I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out my arguments. I've generally mapped out the subproofs I was considering to use, but I'm unsure how to ...
3
votes
2answers
68 views
Can results be predicted?
I wanted to know that, what can we assume as the result of some experiment which we have not conducted on the basis of mathematical proofs? I mean, in general, equations are created after analyzing ...
1
vote
1answer
47 views
How to solve the derivation?
Derive the following without assumptions:
¬∃xFx↔∀x¬Fx
How do I solve this derivation?
2
votes
2answers
77 views
How does one prove ‘(B→C)→¬A’ from ‘(A→B)∨C’ and ‘(A→¬C)’ in Fitch?
I am trying to work my way through this Fitch proof, and I am not sure what I am doing wrong, but I keep getting stuck no matter what I try.
First attempt:
Second attempt:
3
votes
3answers
227 views
2 simple Formal Fitch Proofs
I'm having difficulty proving these. They seem obvious, but I can't figure how to set up formal proofs for them. Could anyone give me clues on how to start them?
¬(P∧¬Q) from the premise P→Q;
¬Q→(R→P)...
4
votes
0answers
125 views
Does anyone have a proof checker they prefer using for modal logic?
I am looking for a proof checker for modal logic using natural deduction or sequent calculus.
I am trying to learn Isabelle, but I think there should be a simpler solution.
Although I can rely on ...
1
vote
1answer
55 views
Does this symbolic logic proof work?
So, I have this proof:
Let a be an open sentential variable.
Let K and C be prepositional variables asserted of sentences.
Given
K(a) <=> C(a) & a
C(a) <=> C( C(a))
C(a & b) <=> C(...
1
vote
0answers
72 views
Why cannot the following theory be refuted by logic but is rejected because of lack of empirical support?
The following statements are taken from a book:
The man in the street, and also the philosopher K. Marbe, believe that after a run of seventeen heads tail becomes more probable. This argument has ...
2
votes
1answer
63 views
Is Frankenstein's monster tantamount to positive proof in Science?
Specifically Biology presents some problems for me. For instance, now that we have Evolution we know what to look for. Thus we are bound to observe some adaptations, and over time even new species. ...
7
votes
9answers
522 views
Can we logically prove that anything exists?
Suppose I want to prove that negative numbers exist. Well, I could easily do that using a mathematical proof. However, all I would be doing is adding another logical object to a list of known logical ...
1
vote
0answers
51 views
Are arguments claiming the impossibility to prove or disprove anything themselves impossible to prove? [duplicate]
Could arguments claiming the impossibility to prove or disprove anything be flawed because if they were sound they would also be impossible to prove?
Or could you just assume they must be right ...
2
votes
1answer
55 views
Correct Way of Handling A Corollary of A Corollary?
I have a conclusion S that is moderately interesting. While the corollary of S is more interesting, the corollary of the corollary of S is extremely interesting. Should I just label them corollary 1 ...
1
vote
3answers
178 views
Proofs in math and physics
Suppose we have the case of a proof in math or physics and we want to compare the status of the derived information. I know that in math mostly all derived information or deduced details are a priori. ...
3
votes
3answers
89 views
Symbolic Logic - Negation Introduction
I am working on a problem for an online class that I'm struggling to figure out.
I'm given these premises:
1. (H > (A > B)) (The > sign here represents conditional)
2. (~K & ~B)
3. (~A > K)
The ...
2
votes
3answers
126 views
Prove ¬∃x ∀y (E(x, y) ↔ ¬E(y, y)) given no premises
The only way I could think of to do this problem is reductio, but since the two biconditional terms are not contradictory, I am pretty stuck.
3
votes
2answers
135 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 ...
2
votes
5answers
143 views
Is there a way to prove the existence of choice and free will
It is practically impossible to "make" more than one decision at a point in time. Even if you "change" your mind later, it is at a later point.
How do we know that those are decisions that sentient ...
3
votes
5answers
163 views
Can any correct logical reasoning in natural language sentences be translated into a formal mathematical proof?
Since natural languages (e.g. English) are prone to ambiguities and misunderstandings due to their constant evolving nature and lack of rigorous formalization, and given an arbitrary philosopher X who ...
1
vote
1answer
48 views
What's the name of this kind of fallacious proof to refute an idea?
In an argumentation where speaker A suggests an idea, we sometimes encounter this kind of fallacious proof from speaker B that speaker A's idea is bad (a very common form is known as passive-agressive ...
2
votes
3answers
160 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 ...
1
vote
1answer
134 views
How to prove the tautology ¬(P↔¬P) using Fitch?
Just as the question proposes, I'm having trouble with proving this tautology. I know one should use proof by contradiction however I am currently stuck.
1
vote
2answers
193 views
Sentential logic derivation: ~(A ≡ B) ├ (~A ≡ B)
I am doing some practice sentential derivation proofs for an upcoming test and have attempt the following proof many, many times without success.
~(A ≡ B) ├ (~A ≡ B)
The logic system I am using is ...
1
vote
2answers
77 views
How to prove using higher abstractions instead of diving into axioms or a little bit deeper?
Sorry for the bad formulated question, feel free to edit it. I will explain my question here.
I try to reflect on my abilities of proving theorems to become better at this. That is why after reading ...
1
vote
1answer
58 views
Doubt in Searle's Mind: A Brief Introduction
I have been reading Searle's Mind: A Brief Introduction, Oxford UP (2004).
In it I came across the passage in Chapter 2:
if we believe that p and if we believe that if p then q we will
believe ...
1
vote
0answers
72 views
Does anyone know of a philosophy which rectifies or considers the following question?
Let's imagine that I began to doubt the validity of one of my arguments, which leads me to question my ability to make rational arguments. And so begin to distrust my intuitive ideas about logic, then ...
0
votes
0answers
34 views
how to prove from ~ (A ∩ B) that ~A∩~B? [duplicate]
How to prove ~ (A ∩ B) ⊢ ~A ∩ ~B ?
my thought is to assume A, find a contradiction, so I can use "~I" to get ~A;
do the same for B to get ~B;
then use "∩I" to get ~A ∩ ~B.
But I struggle to infer ...
3
votes
4answers
216 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 ...
2
votes
0answers
65 views
Do α and β entail each other?
Show whether the following is true or false:
α |= β or β |= α, for any two formulas α and β
I'm assuming here that α and β are formulas, not a set of formulas. My thought is that I can prove that ...
1
vote
2answers
156 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 ...
2
votes
2answers
615 views
Prove whether statement is true or false
Consider the following:
If a |= c or b |= c, then a ∨ b |= c. Prove whether this statement is true or false.
My gut instinct is to compare truth tables, but I don't think a truth table is possible ...
0
votes
1answer
94 views
Has any philosopher ever argued succesfully that anything at all does not exist?
Is it possible to prove that something does not exist? I'm asking because I find it very difficult to think of any such idea.
1
vote
2answers
77 views
Which group is bigger, the one of things we can write about, or that we can feel?
Which group is bigger, the one of things we can write about (in any language (including programing)), or the one of the things we can feel through our senses (including those things that machines help ...
2
votes
1answer
140 views
Quine - Two dogmas of empiricism - status of mathematics [duplicate]
If we do away with the analytic-synthetic distinction as per Quine, does that mean that mathematics is no more certain than empirical science?
And how does mathematical proof proceed if we don't use ...
2
votes
3answers
146 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
4answers
131 views
Language Logic Proof Question: ¬∃x∀y[E(x,y) ↔ ¬E(y,y)]
I am wondering if I have completed this proof properly. I don't think I have it right. It's tricky!
Conclusion: ¬∃x∀y[E(x,y) ↔ ¬E(y,y)]
¬¬∃x∀y[E(x,y) ↔ ¬E(y,y)]
∃x∀y[E(x,y) ↔ ¬E(y,y)] ¬E,1
...
3
votes
2answers
91 views
How does one prove a generalised conditional statement?
I'm trying to prove a statement of the form ∀x: P(x) → Q(x). Apparently the way to do it is to prove that Q(x) for some x such that P(x), assuming that x is arbitrarily chosen, and hence ...
4
votes
4answers
678 views
What is the nature of proof in mathematics?
Preamble:
I think we have this sort of questions, where we are required to find a solution for them. For example, what is the area of a circle?. I think the way to solve these problems is to try to ...
0
votes
6answers
264 views
How can you prove I'm not a dog? [closed]
This is a general question that proves you have no way of knowing anything. How can you prove, that if you see me (assume I look like you exactly, because you don't have a picture of me), I am not a ...
2
votes
1answer
184 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 (...
4
votes
1answer
2k views
Use the Fitch system to prove the tautology (p ∨ ¬p)
I've scoured the math stackexchange and the philosophy one for some guidance on how to go about this while using the Fitch System.
Anyone can attempt it here;
http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/...
