Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

Questions tagged [proof]

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

12
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 ...
2
votes
3answers
641 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 ...
4
votes
2answers
168 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
2k 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 ...
63
votes
12answers
14k 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
108 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 ...
0
votes
1answer
148 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 ...
4
votes
1answer
246 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 ...
6
votes
2answers
978 views

Given P ∨ ¬ P prove (P → Q) → ((¬ P → Q) → Q) by natural deduction

I am very new to proof and logic and I would really appreciate a rundown of this proof. I use a program called Fitch to construct my proofs. I understand there are two types of proofs. Direct ...
11
votes
11answers
941 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
2answers
57 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 ...
1
vote
1answer
69 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
3answers
143 views

Is anything not proven impossible therefore possible?

Is it a truism that, except for that which is proven impossible, everything is or must be considered possible? If so, why? It seems to me to be an argument from ignorance to say that just because we ...
1
vote
1answer
94 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-...
4
votes
3answers
133 views

Do picture proofs of the Pythagorean theorem make it empirical?

As I understand it, the Pythagorean Theorem, which defines the metric for Euclidean space, is said to be strictly mathematical in the sense that it is derived from a set of purely theoretical axioms (...
2
votes
1answer
189 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 ...
6
votes
1answer
235 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 ...
2
votes
1answer
79 views

How to prove or disprove validity of ◻◻p → ◻p in the frame (Q,<) of the rational numbers with the usual less-than ordering?

I was wondering if someone can perhaps help with this proving. I am not sure how to handle a temporal frame that is not a set of only natural numbers. Any suggestions? Thank you.
1
vote
2answers
70 views

I need some help determining the validity of the following argument

“I got the highest grade on the last test and I have perfect attendance. If I get a cold, then I miss at least one class. I came down with a cold. Therefore, if I missed at least one class, then I ...
0
votes
2answers
40 views

Proof with conditional introduction

Below is a screen-cap of part of a video where a proof using conditional introduction is shown, which is proving under certain assumptions that given A is true, then the adjacent sentence is also true....
4
votes
5answers
178 views

Is an argument in natural language as logically valid as in formal logic?

Is a natural language philosophical argument which is argued strictly from first principles widely considered equally as valid as a proof written in formal logic?
2
votes
2answers
122 views

Prove or disprove ~◇◻p → ◇◇~p in system K

How to start with the following proof? Any help would be appreciated. I have tried by assuming the left side is true, however, I get confused with the negation. ~◇◻p → ◇◇~p
7
votes
3answers
8k views

Proving 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 does ...
1
vote
3answers
155 views

Modal validity & vagueness

(2nd version to make explicit my implicit assumptions about A, B and C, and the definitions of the non-logical constants "⊂" and "≡".) Intuitively, the following modal argument seems valid to me and ...
1
vote
4answers
264 views

Is the Kalam cosmological argument scientifically provable?

Kalam Cosmological Argument: (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a ...
-2
votes
1answer
349 views

If there is anything that could behave like a god, is it then a real god? [closed]

Let's assume that the our universe's physics allows time travel. This is my main assumption! Let's further assume that there is an quite intelligent, invulnerable being, that found a way to achieve ...
10
votes
3answers
1k views

Are there rules for dealing with self-reference “paradoxes” in logic?

My favorite paradox that leads to an endless regress, and also leads to a question: The sentence after this is true. The sentence before this is false. When contradictions appear in proofs, ...
2
votes
2answers
83 views

How to get the refutation of (OP ⊃ OQ) ∴ O(P ⊃ Q) in Deontic Logic

In Deontic Logic, one could easily infer "If it is obligatory that P, then it is Obligatory that Q", from "It is obligatory that if P then Q" O(P ⊃ Q) ∴ (OP ⊃ OQ) Where the ⊃ is an implication (...
1
vote
1answer
66 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 ...
7
votes
2answers
433 views

How does one prove properties of soundness and completeness for a logic using proof-theoretic semantics?

Can one prove these properties at all without relying on notions of models and interpretations? Are there other properties that proof-theorists usually prove instead? From what I've read, I've only ...
0
votes
1answer
73 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
110 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
137 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 ...
1
vote
2answers
109 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
110 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.
5
votes
3answers
893 views

What exactly are the identity rules in logic?

In first order logic, I have read that there are a couple of identity rules. If I have "a=b" does it mean that I can also write it as "b=a"? Is it true one-way or both? And if I have two ...
0
votes
2answers
115 views
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 ...
3
votes
3answers
301 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)...
1
vote
2answers
199 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
1answer
80 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. ...
3
votes
2answers
72 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 ...
2
votes
2answers
59 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 ...
11
votes
8answers
1k views

How do we know if a mathematical proof is valid?

Georg Cantor has showed there are more real numbers than natural numbers in his diagonal argument. Assuming that two sets have the same size if we can make a pair up elements from set A with elements ...
1
vote
1answer
90 views

How to solve the derivation?

Derive the following without assumptions: ¬∃xFx↔∀x¬Fx How do I solve this derivation?
2
votes
2answers
120 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:
1
vote
3answers
181 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. ...
5
votes
2answers
236 views

Is there such a thing as provability of provability?

Gödel says that there are true statements that can't be proved, given a sound axiomatic system. Does anyone say anything about the provability of the provability of statements? Is it still an open ...
6
votes
3answers
404 views

What is behind Girard's idea of distinguishing implication ( ⇒) and entailment (⊢) without separating language and meta-language?

How should we understand the distinction between ⇒ and ⊢ ? I often see that A ⇒ B lives in the object language and A ⊢ B in the meta language. But I need a different interpretation, without any ...
1
vote
1answer
57 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(...