Episode #125 of the Stack Overflow podcast is here. We talk Tilde Club and mechanical keyboards. Listen now

Questions tagged [proof]

For questions about the correctness of a proof or the nature of proofs in general.

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
0
votes
1answer
65 views

What kinds of proofs can be given for axioms, e.g. the modal axiom S5?

From John Bigelow and Robert Pargetter's book, titled, 'Science and Necessity', they assert the following: . . . . The resulting system, S5, contains all the theorems of S4 and all the theorems of ...
2
votes
3answers
233 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
4answers
15k views

Does the famous Descartes quote “dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum” suggests secure knowledge of ones existence?

After a discussion about the "difficulties to distinguish knowledge from faith" someone replied to me that the quote implies faith because it uses the word "think". But as it is generally understood: ...
5
votes
3answers
714 views

In Fitch, how does one prove “(P → Q)” from the premise “(¬P ∨ Q)”?

It's all in the question really. I am working on a proof in Fitch for a class, but I am very much stuck. I am proving the tautology that "(P → Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ Q)", and I have already finished half of it, ...
3
votes
1answer
58 views

Is a tree proof or natural deduction a semantic method of proof?

Peter Schroeder-Heister writes in an article on "Proof-Theoretic Semantics" the following: Proof-theoretic semantics is inherently inferential, as it is inferential activity which manifests itself ...
0
votes
1answer
35 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
10
votes
9answers
3k views

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

Obviously since A → C and B → D then if A v B one of C or D must be true. My only idea is v must be introduced, but how would I use subproofs to show one of A /\ C or B /\ D is never false if A v B?
3
votes
1answer
278 views

Proof Using Model Universe

Suppose I am trying to prove the following argument (∀x)(Cx → Dx), (∀x)(Ex → ~Dx), /∴ (∀x)(Ex → ~Cx) Now, let's also assume that I don't know if this argument is valid or not. Because of this, I try ...
11
votes
13answers
2k 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 ...
0
votes
1answer
194 views

Using predicate logic, how to solve symmetric and anti reflexive

The networks is: A->B->C->D The channels used by the network are: lo, med, hi h-hi, l-lo, m-med i) A network uses one, and only one channel. ii) Networks within close proximity cannot both use the ...
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
79 views

Help with an existential natural deduction proof

From the assumption ∃x∃y R(x, y) I need to derive the conclusion ∃y∃x R(x, y) From the comments: I tried to use Existential Elimination but I can't figure out how to do it properly.
0
votes
2answers
43 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?
2
votes
1answer
111 views

Are analogical middle terms sufficient for a valid demonstration?

William A. Wallace, O.P., in “Thomism and the Quantum Enigma,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 455–468, claims that analogical middle terms are sufficient for a valid demonstration and that this is a ...
0
votes
1answer
29 views

How does one go about this natural deduction proof?

From no assumptions derive the conclusion ∃x t = x (where t can be any term).
0
votes
1answer
55 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
113 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
2answers
247 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 ...
2
votes
3answers
801 views

How is Wittgenstein’s “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel's Theorem not obviously correct?

Timm Lampert quotes from Wittgenstein's "notorious paragraph" (§8 of Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, Appendix 3) in http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-6-issue-1-article-6....
1
vote
2answers
117 views

De Morgan for Quantifiers Formal Proof: Inhabitance Question

I have a problem reading existing question's answers. I've successfully encoded the proof of one of De Morgan's Laws, ¬∃x P(x) → ∀x ¬P(x), for Quantifiers formally via cubicaltt type-checker via Curry-...
1
vote
1answer
233 views

De Morgan for Quantifiers Formal Proof: ∀∃-intro and -elim Questions

I have a problem reading existing question's answers. I've successfully encoded the proof of one of De Morgan's Laws, ¬∃x P(x) → ∀x ¬P(x), for Quantifiers formally via cubicaltt type-checker via Curry-...
0
votes
2answers
60 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 ...
3
votes
2answers
178 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 ...
1
vote
1answer
55 views

Logical, semantic and self-referential paradoxes: The Truth teller and the Liar (draft) can an expert on the matter give feedback?

Title: Logical semantic and self-referential paradoxes: The Truthteller and the Liar (draft, informal) (major) assumption: A statement is either true or not true (law of excluded middle, classical ...
1
vote
1answer
78 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,...
-3
votes
1answer
81 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)∧...
3
votes
4answers
243 views

Help with a proof in Classical Sentence Logic

Premise: (A implies B) implies C Conclusion: (C implies A) implies A I had a logic exam a few hours ago and this was one of the problems, but I really didn't know where to start. Since the main ...
8
votes
4answers
9k views

How does one prove De Morgan's laws for quantifiers?

One of De Morgan's laws state that ¬∃x P(x) is equivalent to ∀x ¬P(x), but how would one go about formally proving this? Numerous attempts to find a solution have been futile, even proofwiki.org ...
2
votes
1answer
82 views

Proof Tree to Fitch Proof

I was wondering if anyone could help me on a proof I've been working on: I was able to check that it is valid with a proof tree generator (prooftools): However, I still haven't figured out the proof....
4
votes
4answers
680 views

How to find redundant premises?

Suppose I have this simple argument: ( P ⊃ Q ) R P Therefore, Q Here's the truth table I made in an excel worksheet: As you can see this comes out valid but in reality it isn't valid ...
1
vote
1answer
74 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 ...
0
votes
2answers
62 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 ...
1
vote
2answers
69 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 ...
1
vote
2answers
75 views

Logical equivalence proofs

Trying to master logical equivalence proofs out of a textbook is proving to be difficult. I’m hung up on these four problems. I can make some progress, but usually get stuck towards the very end. Any ...
2
votes
2answers
59 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 ...
2
votes
1answer
262 views

Clear and canonical examples of analytical proofs in philosophy

I am used to the proof methods of mathematics, and I have formally studied formal logic and mathematical logic. I like philosophy but have never followed a rigorous course in analytical philosophy. ...
4
votes
2answers
159 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 ...
4
votes
2answers
69 views

How to find a stance towards a controversial topic

When is a stance towards a topic "proven"? To create this example I will take the anti vax topic. My first impulse is: anti vax people are stupid. They ignore basic science. I myself would (...
3
votes
3answers
177 views

New riddle of induction; does the observer know the arbitrary time t?

Wikipedia, in "New riddle of induction", sets out Nelson Goodman's paradox as follows: Goodman defined grue relative to an arbitrary but fixed time t as follows: An object is grue if and only if ...
2
votes
1answer
290 views

How does a truth tree provide positive and negative effect tests for implication?

I'm trying to prove that the truth-tree method can be used to give a positive effect test for implication, and a negative effect test for non-implication. I've been given the fact that The truth-tree ...
1
vote
1answer
103 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
2answers
62 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.
40
votes
15answers
14k views

Does a negative claimant have a burden of proof?

I have often heard it said that the burden of proof is on the positive claimant but not on the one making a negative claim. A person claiming, "God exists" has a burden of proof but not a person ...
1
vote
3answers
338 views

Fitch Proof Question

I'm having trouble with a proof and I'm not sure if it's valid or not. If it appears to be invalid, we are supposed to assign names to the letters in the proof and check it in a World, but when I do ...
11
votes
9answers
1k views

Is a proof still valid if only the author understands it?

Some time ago I was reading about the recent Shinichi Mochizuki's proof for the famous ABC conjecture. It's enormous and so incredibly difficult that at that time virtually nobody was able to ...
4
votes
2answers
169 views

Where can I learn about the philosophy behind mathematical and logical proofs?

I'm looking for something that dives into the philosophical idea of a "proof," and explains how the subjects of mathematics and logic deal with it. Does anyone have any book or article recommendations ...
9
votes
4answers
3k views

Why is Modus Ponens valid?

I am having trouble understanding what defines Entailment operator. On Mathoverflow I posted this question on what I perceive to be paradox of entailment. Consider: Modus Ponens: P therefore Q P ...
64
votes
12answers
15k views

Can you prove anything in philosophy?

I don't understand philosophy very well, and so I am wondering whether you can "prove" anything in philosophy. It always seems you can go a layer down, and find another question, almost endlessly ...
1
vote
1answer
112 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 ...
4
votes
1answer
328 views

How to Prove P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) using Natural Deduction

How would a formal Fitch proof look like. I am given P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) to prove using Natural Deduction of predicate logic. I am confused on how to proceed with the proof. Please advice me ...