Questions tagged [proof]
For questions about the correctness of a proof or the nature of proofs in general.
283
questions
0
votes
0answers
54 views
Nested Quantifiers Proof - Logic
When I prove this: -∃x.P(x) ⊢ ∀x.-P(x) [True]
I did it like that:
∀x.-P(x) ⊢ ∀x.-P(x) because (negative ∃) -∃x.P(x) becomes ∀x.-P(x) so that we can say that it's true.
However, I didn't ...
-2
votes
0answers
33 views
Proofs of propositional logic truth tree rules in natural deduction?
It is a great irony of natural deduction that some of the most seemingly obvious inferences are also some of the trickiest to prove! So far, I haven't been able to prove the following, and I'd greatly ...
1
vote
2answers
113 views
How to understand a proof by contradiction in minute detail?
I am following the course "Language, Proof, and Logic" from Stanford on EdX. I am trying to understand proof by contradiction specifically. I understand the gist of this type of proof, and I ...
0
votes
0answers
9 views
What are examples of proving post-analytical hypotheses and what is the post-analytical meaning of truth?
I've enjoyed Cornel West's MasterClass lectures -especially the lecture about The Impact of Music on Community- and it made me wonder about verification of post-analytic statements of truths.
Before I ...
-1
votes
1answer
137 views
Help me solve this predicate logic proof theory: -(∀z)(∃y)Tzy ⊢ (∃z)(∀y)-Tzy
-(∀z)(∃y)Tzy ⊢ (∃z)(∀y)-Tzy
Using Lande, (AI,EI,AE,EE,->E,->I,-I,--E,^I,^E,vI,vE) I cannot figure out the proof on this sequent.
0
votes
2answers
92 views
Predicate logic proof solve
Provide a proof for the following using FOL in forallx
Use the natural deduction system and proof strategies in forallx to provide a formal proof for the following . Please provide a picture of your ...
1
vote
2answers
51 views
Does ◇◇A mean ~◻~~◻~A? If so is it by definition or it requires a proof?
In system K, ◇A is defined to mean ~◻~A. Therefore, it is very tempting to conclude ◇◇A means ~◻~~◻~A. But I am not certain whether this is valid conclusion to make, because in ◇◇A, the main operator ...
-2
votes
1answer
87 views
Proving ~◻p → ~p in System K [closed]
I am working on a proof of ~◻p → ~p in System K. It says "If it is not the case that p is necessarily true, then p is not true". I have turned all the abbreviated symbols into their ...
0
votes
0answers
80 views
Proving validity/invalidity of a modal argument
□(A v B) → (□A v □B) ...(1)
This symbolic argument is intuitively invalid. In (1), if we replace B with ~A, then we see that though the antecedent is necessary, the consequent is a contradiction since ...
1
vote
0answers
81 views
How do logicians think of strength of proof systems?
I want to understand how logicians reason about strengths of proof systems and argue relative strengths of proof systems. I want to appreciate the validity of the reasoning by which we establish ...
0
votes
1answer
105 views
What are sufficient grounds for establishing a theory?
This question delves into the definition of a theory, but somewhat into the grounds of Set Theory as well. I was wondering on what grounds is theory established and accepted. To what degree do the ...
3
votes
2answers
150 views
Is the Categorical Imperative Simply Bad Math? :)
The title is clickbait, but the question is not.
First, The Categorical Imperative:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
...
1
vote
10answers
597 views
Proof for the absence of free will?
There are a number of arguments which aim to prove the impossibility of free will.
The Standard Argument (incorporating the Determinism Objection and the Randomness Objection) is well known and ...
-1
votes
2answers
56 views
Help with Sentential Logic Proof
everyone. I'm running into real trouble figuring out the following sentential logic problem.
(S v T) ⊃ (S ⊃ ~T)
(S ⊃ ~T) ⊃ (T ⊃ K)
S v T
What we're supposed to get: S v K
Any help that anyone might ...
0
votes
0answers
47 views
Is the following derivation of predicate logic correct?
I recently discovered https://proofs.openlogicproject.org/, except I'm still figuring out the appropriate rules that are needed for the system to check my proof. I thought it'd be quicker to turn to ...
2
votes
5answers
104 views
Why are there problems we don’t know how to solve?
For example, there is a simple deterministic algorithm for determining whether any given number is a perfect square. But why don’t we know how to solve things like the p vs np problem or the collatz ...
0
votes
5answers
121 views
When can we have certainty in what we claim to know?
This is a question that my friends asked me a few times. I am confused, because I have been trying to answer this question myself, but I can't seem to come up with any valid answer. For example, what ...
-1
votes
1answer
71 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.
2
votes
1answer
73 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.
2
votes
3answers
113 views
Prove the following theorem: Need hints to finish it
This is not homework. I do it for fun and learning.
I use the Logic Book.
Problem has to be done in SD+.
How to prove the following argument :
|- [~A =>(~B=>C)]=>[(A v B) v (~~B v C )]
I ...
3
votes
2answers
300 views
What makes an argument objectively more "compelling"?
If person A gives an argument to person B in order to convince them about the truth of claim X, how can B determine how compelling A's argument is in a way that is as objective as possible (i.e. in a ...
0
votes
1answer
81 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.
1
vote
1answer
102 views
Is there anyway to prove things happen/exist if I'm not aware of them?
I don't even know how to properly ask this, but how can one prove things happen without them knowing?
Things only exist for me when I'm aware of them, either by direct contact (I see it, I feel it etc....
0
votes
0answers
122 views
Proof truth is absolute and not relative
First of all, I want to point out I am not any expert in philosophy, so this question is not based in no further readings, but only my own knowledge in logic.
Imagine I want to proof the truth is ...
0
votes
1answer
125 views
Is the DREAM controversy an example of the logical fallacy of personal incredulity?
There's this Minecraft speed-runner called Dream who has been accused of cheating due to his drop luck. A moderator team has calculated that the p-value of the chance you'd get the same drops as Dream ...
1
vote
0answers
60 views
Looking for the correct english term for [closed]
I just remembered a conversation I had (in german) about 18 years ago and the other person used the (german) term "All Theorie", which in this context was not related to the theory of ...
4
votes
1answer
2k views
Does software exist to automatically validate an argument?
I'd like to
Derive logical arguments from English, and
test their validity using a program.
Does software exist for step 2? It would be fine if it were to give up because
The validity isn't ...
-1
votes
2answers
104 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 ...
-2
votes
2answers
94 views
Is there any proof of assertion that "assertion can be proved"?
Here's some reason to doubt any proof:
Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on ...
2
votes
1answer
74 views
Soundness and Completeness of Tableaux
Tableaux to my knowledge are both sound and complete.
The statement:
"If P is valid then tableau for -P eventually closes".
Does this statement prove that tableau is sound and complete or ...
0
votes
0answers
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 ...
-1
votes
1answer
117 views
How do philosophers answer a question like 'How do you know something exists?'
I recently watched a video from Rationality Rules titled "The Argument from Personal Experience - Debunked (Why Personal Experiences are NOT Proof)". As the title reveals, the video's goal ...
-1
votes
2answers
201 views
How would an philosopher and scientist solve the following kidnapping - scenario?
I would like to hear your opinion as philosophers and scientists regarding how you would solve the problem of proof in the following scenario:
"Plato" who has dementia and a damaged left ...
0
votes
1answer
26 views
Rudimentary Proof in SL
So I'm currently being introduced to SL and asked to prove a statement. A simple question with the premise L & W and L ⇒ ¬ F. I am asked to prove W & ¬ F. Could someone verify my solution?
So ...
-1
votes
2answers
87 views
Prove that the following is a logical truth (tautology) using a natural deduction derivation: (B → C) ˅ (¬B → C) [closed]
Prove that the following is a logical truth (tautology) using a natural deduction derivation:
(B → C) ˅ (¬B → C)
How do I prove this using statement logic? I know I need to start with a supposition ...
0
votes
2answers
138 views
What is the difference between these two types of proofs?
While employing induction method for proving, is deriving the string(formula) "Fn → Fn+1 " any different from showing that if Fn holds true, then so does Fn+1 ?
By showing I mean that we use ...
0
votes
1answer
74 views
Functional Abbreviation for Inst Expression in Turing's Paper [closed]
In Turing's 1936 paper On Computable Numbers Page 30-31, and its Correction Page 1-2
For a Turing Machine M, Inst(i,j,k,LEFT,l) means that if M scans symbol j under m-configuration i, then the symbol ...
0
votes
1answer
79 views
How does one prove (A->B)vC from the premise ~A? [closed]
Is the premise really enough to prove this?
-1
votes
1answer
76 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)...
-2
votes
1answer
39 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 ...
-1
votes
1answer
38 views
Modal Logic Proof in System T
I need to provide an axiomatic proof of the following formula in System T of modal logic: ◇(A→□B)→(□A→◇B). Any advice on how to start would be great!
1
vote
6answers
376 views
Is there anything a supernatural entity (e.g. God) could do to irrefutably prove its existence to humans? [closed]
I just posted a question in which I ask if spontaneously regrowing amputated limbs would constitute a proof of the supernatural, and several of the answers have presented interesting objections. This ...
11
votes
8answers
5k views
Is watching an amputated limb regrow proof of the supernatural?
A typical challenge skeptics present when confronted with claims of alleged miracles is "why won't God Heal amputees?". But, would that do the job? Consider the following thought experiment: ...
2
votes
0answers
123 views
How to do indirect proof (reductio ad absurdum) using natural deduction for modal logic?
I have been using Garson's Modal Logic for Philosophers, 2nd edition, to learn how to use natural deduction with modal logic. (BTW, does anyone know where there's an answer key for chapters 1 and 2 of ...
0
votes
0answers
69 views
Computing Premises from Consequence
We write 'If A, then B' to mean that if A is true, then B must be true because B is a logical consequence of A i.e. it is impossible for A to be true but B to be false.
Let us consider one such ...
2
votes
1answer
320 views
How can a proof system be unsound?
I have recently started learning propositional logic. I stumbled upon the concepts of soundness and completeness.
According to http://intrologic.stanford.edu/chapters/chapter_04.html, a proof system ...
1
vote
3answers
183 views
can an argument containing a contradiction be valid argument
I know that validity has nothing with truth of the conclusion or with how good argument is in general, and an argument is valid iff the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion.
...
-1
votes
2answers
171 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
-2
votes
2answers
106 views
I need help using the rules of implication/inference to construct a proof for the following argument: [closed]
I need help using the rules of implication/inference to construct a proof for the following argument:
1.(A ∨ B) ⊃ (C ∨ D)
C ⊃ E
C ∨ ~F
A ● ~E
F ∨ (D ⊃ Z)
.: Z
KEY:
Tilde (~) forms negations (“...
0
votes
1answer
95 views
Negation of the Rule of Implication proof
tried forever to figure out a solution to this problem. It's based on the rule of Material Implication with a negation in front of both sides. Namely the premise is ~(A>B) with the goal solution ...
