Questions tagged [proof]
For questions about the correctness of a proof or the nature of proofs in general.
55
questions
3
votes
3
answers
986
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.
...
- 39
80
votes
12
answers
22k
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 ...
- 926
42
votes
16
answers
19k
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 ...
user409
2
votes
2
answers
317
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....
- 123
2
votes
15
answers
1k
views
Proof for the absence of free will?
EDIT (17/08/2022): I have answered this question with an evolution of the argument. See accepted answer below.
There are a number of arguments which aim to prove the impossibility of free will.
The ...
- 4,107
11
votes
10
answers
2k
views
What makes something mathematics?
Dictionary.com definition of math:
(used with a singular verb) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.
...
- 259
8
votes
5
answers
17k
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 ...
- 321
5
votes
6
answers
3k
views
Is any aspect of the supernatural testable? What level of proof is possible for the supernatural?
Assume the supernatural does exist, and consists of beings/forces that can interact with our natural universe in ways that are contrary to the natural laws of this universe (at least as we know them).
...
- 956
2
votes
3
answers
640
views
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: How can truth go deeper than proof?
My current understanding:
Math starts with a set of basic (purportedly self-evident) statements that are taken as a given without the need to prove them true, like e.g., a + b = b + a etc. Such ...
11
votes
8
answers
6k
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: ...
user48437
6
votes
4
answers
935
views
Can something "count" as TRUE without support by logic and empirical data?
I was in an online debate and had this statement presented to me.
I would note further that your apparent positivism rests on what is
logically a faith claim - specifically, the unproveble claim ...
- 163
4
votes
2
answers
718
views
Can there be true conclusions without assumptions?
I was thinking of the sentence
"I think therefore I am",
which I had for a long time considered indisputable because it's self-evident.
Then I considered the hypothetical situation where my ...
- 41
3
votes
1
answer
6k
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/...
13
votes
9
answers
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 ...
- 311
12
votes
9
answers
12k
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?
- 137
9
votes
4
answers
5k
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
...
- 426
7
votes
5
answers
8k
views
What is the difference between mathematical reasoning and philosophical reasoning?
Please see question in title.
Why isn't philosophy considered to be a branch of mathematics?
Is study of anything not a branch of mathematics, vague and imprecise?
- 187
6
votes
3
answers
2k
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, ...
- 61
6
votes
6
answers
849
views
What does it mean that a claim is a claim of nonexistence?
This question has devolved into a discussion. As I understand the discussion, everything is revolving around the veracity of statement
Nonexistence can never be proven.
and on what exactly ...
user409
3
votes
6
answers
470
views
Is the debate on free will over? [closed]
I've never posted on here but I am interested in philosophy. I think a lot about free will / determinism / compatibilism. I always felt like I have some degree of free will. I know free will is ...
- 49
3
votes
1
answer
179
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 ...
- 7,817
1
vote
4
answers
585
views
What can suffice as a scientific proof for God? to what domain can such a proof belong to? [closed]
"Scientific" theories require proof, and there are certain guidelines and standards for the proofs to be acceptable to the "scientific" community in that domain (Algebra, Computer Science, etc.). ...
- 135
1
vote
7
answers
877
views
The blur between proof and evidence [closed]
Consider this:
Evidence is the foundations of proof.
So, enough evidence creates proof.
However, how much evidence is needed to make proof depends on the concerning persons' circumstances, ...
- 21
15
votes
8
answers
7k
views
Does every truth have to be provable based on evidence?
I know the answer is "no" in general due to Gödel's Theory of Incompleteness, but I mean this question in a more real-world sense (i.e. scientific sense). In other words, I am talking about empirical ...
- 271
12
votes
16
answers
7k
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 ...
- 121
11
votes
8
answers
1k
views
What is the correct, pragmatic, reasoning response to conspiracy theories?
It's established that the burden of proof rests on the party making a claim.
The problem I find, is that for any conspiracy theory - the proponent can point to a multitude of conspiracy websites or ...
- 221
11
votes
3
answers
3k
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, we have ...
- 803
9
votes
6
answers
900
views
Claims that we know (virtually) nothing - can they be refuted?
Here's an argument that I've heard a number of times from friends and on the Internet:
"The ratio of what we know about the universe to what we have yet to
discover is so small - it is therefore ...
- 303
8
votes
10
answers
4k
views
Does theism have the burden of proof?
I have heard that agnosticism seems to be the only position with respect to god that doesn’t have a burden of proof. What I find troubling about this is most people do not as a practical matter think ...
- 8,278
7
votes
1
answer
9k
views
The difference between argument, inference, deduction and proof?
I am trying to distinguish argument, inference, deduction and proof. First, let's look at the distinction between argument and inference (if there is one). This online source states:
An argument ...
- 799
5
votes
2
answers
550
views
What is the difference between everyday realism and metaphysical realism?
At an everyday level, we seem to subscribe to a from of strong realism which doesn't leave any room for skepticism. We are certain that individuals who hear voices in their heads or who have ...
- 27.1k
5
votes
6
answers
1k
views
What is the relationship between algorithms and logic?
Is an algorithm (cooking a dish, Grover's/Shor algorithm, etc.) a form of deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning, and if not what exactly is the relationship between an alogorithm and logic?
- 1,157
5
votes
1
answer
1k
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 ...
- 19.2k
5
votes
3
answers
3k
views
Are axioms tautologies?
My understanding is that axioms are the unprovable statements upon which systems are built. Tautologies are in essence things that can't be false.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, though, shows that ...
- 171
4
votes
5
answers
462
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 ...
- 230
4
votes
2
answers
160
views
help with deductive proof
∀x (Fx ∨ x=c), ¬Fb ∧ Gb |- ¬Fa → Ga
So far I don't understand how to switch variables around to prove the result.
I've got a subproof set up assuming "¬Fa" in order to derive "Ga".
In that proof I ...
- 153
4
votes
1
answer
234
views
Is it provable that epistemically possible (possible for all I know) does not imply possible?
Here is an argument that it is not. Let's start with some equivalences:
X is epistemically possible
iff
X is possible for all I know
iff
not (X is impossible given what I know)
iff
X is not ...
- 41
3
votes
2
answers
460
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 ...
user48437
3
votes
1
answer
179
views
Would the imaginary unit be the truth-value of sentences formed using √𝐧𝐨𝐭?
Section 4.3 of "Sentence Connectives in Formal Logic" discusses a concept of demi-negation or what is (for the sake of the text) resolved to a concept of "the square root of negation&...
- 12.2k
3
votes
5
answers
321
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 ...
- 689
3
votes
1
answer
2k
views
How to discharge an assumption?
I am proving the follow argument
[(A ↔ B ) → C] ⊢ [ - ( A ^ B) V C ]
Using the following set of rules
I, ^E, vI, vE, →I, →E, ↔I, ↔E, --E, -I
Here are my steps but I got to the point where I ...
3
votes
3
answers
3k
views
Prove A ∨ D from A ∨ (B ∧ C) and (¬ B ∨ ¬ C) ∨ D ( LPL Q6.26) without using --> or material implication
This is a repeated question: Language Logic and Proof Q. 6.26
Using the natural deduction rules, give a formal proof of
A ∨ D
from the premises
A ∨ (B ∧ C)
(¬ B ∨ ¬ C) ∨ D
...
- 131
3
votes
2
answers
1k
views
What's the difference (if any) between demonstration and description?
How do philosophers of various schools* explain the difference (if any) between demonstration and mere description? Are they synonymous, or are they different? How so?
My first impressions:
To ...
- 7,817
2
votes
4
answers
23k
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:
...
- 1,324
2
votes
1
answer
1k
views
Prove ◇(p ∨ q) → (◇p ∨ ◇q) and ◇(p ∧ q) → (◇p ∧ ◇q) in Modal Logic K
I would really appreciate a rundown of a proof of one of the formulas or both:
1) ◇(p ∨ q) → (◇p ∨ ◇q)
2) ◇(p ∧ q) → (◇p ∧ ◇q)
I'm allowed to use following proof procedures of modal logic K:
1) ...
2
votes
2
answers
728
views
How to check if this proof is valid?
I'm having some doubt if this proof is valid or invalid, especially regarding the line 4 derived from line 2. Do I need to change the letter in there?
1. (z)~Fz
∴ ~(z)Fz
Using Indirect proof ...
- 527
2
votes
2
answers
441
views
Negative facts and truths
I know Russell and Wittgenstein argued about negative truths. It is easy to prove the existence of some property provided there is considerable empirical evidence for its existence, but what if we are ...
- 370
2
votes
6
answers
2k
views
Is logic built on assumptions?
I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but
how can we know that our logical approach to ideas is not in itself based on assumptions. For example, how can we know that the workings of the ...
- 123
2
votes
1
answer
842
views
prove: ∃x ∃y (Cube(x) ∧ Cube(y) ∧ x ≠ y ∧ ∀z (Cube(z) → (z = x ∨ z = y)))
I need a formal (Fitch) first order logic proof for:
∃x ∃y (P(x) ∧ P(y) ∧ x ≠ y ∧ ∀z (P(z) → (z = x ∨ z = y)))
Given
∃x ∃y (P(x) ∧ P(y) ∧ x ≠ y)
∀x ∀y ∀z ((P(x) ∧ P(y) ∧ P(z)) → (x = y ∨ x = z ∨...
- 21
2
votes
2
answers
255
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 ...
