Questions tagged [proof]
For questions about the correctness of a proof or the nature of proofs in general.
322
questions
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
-1
votes
2
answers
80
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 ...
- 7
0
votes
0
answers
85
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 ...
- 9
2
votes
5
answers
121
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 ...
- 39
0
votes
5
answers
269
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 ...
- 101
-1
votes
1
answer
105
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.
- 1
2
votes
1
answer
89
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.
- 21
2
votes
3
answers
136
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 ...
- 164
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
-1
votes
1
answer
104
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
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
0
votes
0
answers
499
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 ...
- 113
1
vote
2
answers
193
views
Is a game player winning against very long odds being a cheat, 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 (ie receiving useful things in the game). A moderator team has calculated that the p-value of the ...
- 135
1
vote
0
answers
62
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 ...
- 111
4
votes
1
answer
3k
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 ...
- 157
-1
votes
2
answers
117
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 ...
- 7
-2
votes
2
answers
104
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 ...
- 401
2
votes
1
answer
117
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 ...
- 23
0
votes
0
answers
43
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 ...
- 63
-1
votes
1
answer
276
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 ...
user48437
-1
votes
2
answers
221
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
1
answer
27
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
2
answers
107
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
2
answers
147
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 ...
- 1,065
0
votes
1
answer
79
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 ...
- 1,065
0
votes
1
answer
107
views
How does one prove (A->B)vC from the premise ~A? [closed]
Is the premise really enough to prove this?
- 3
-1
votes
1
answer
85
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)...
- 9
-2
votes
1
answer
42
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
1
answer
89
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
6
answers
431
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 ...
user48437
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
2
votes
0
answers
141
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
0
answers
70
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 ...
- 1,065
2
votes
1
answer
747
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 ...
- 35
1
vote
3
answers
660
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
2
answers
500
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
- 1
-2
votes
2
answers
132
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:
A ⊃ C
D
~C
~A ● D
KEY:
Tilde (~) forms negations (“not,” “it is not the case that”).
Dot (●)...
- 9
0
votes
1
answer
187
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 ...
- 1
-1
votes
1
answer
125
views
First Order Languages [closed]
C1: ∀xWeakPref(x,x)
C2: ∀xIndiff(x,x)
C3: ∀x∀y(Indiff(x,y)↔Indiff(y,x))
C4: ∀x∀y∀z((Indiff(x,y)∧Indiff(y,z))→Indiff(x,z))
C5: ∀x∀y(StrongPref(x,y)→WeakPref(x,y))
C6: ∀x∀y(StrongPref(x,y)→ ¬StrongPref(...
5
votes
1
answer
124
views
Actual and potential truth for neo-verificationists
Neo-verificationists such as Martin-Löf and Prawitz make a distinction between actual and potential truth of a proposition, roughly defined as follows:
... that a proposition A is actually true means ...
- 59
-1
votes
2
answers
469
views
How to prove A<—>not A
So basically there are no premises, but the file I have received to start this problem has a contradiction symbol as step one. I’m not sure if this was a mistake or purposeful, and if it was ...
- 1
0
votes
2
answers
497
views
fitch proof chapter 13 (ex. 13.29) [closed]
how to proof exercise 13.29 without using taut con
-1
votes
2
answers
337
views
Logic – Deduction in Tarski's World (Fitch/LPL 13.22) [closed]
I am trying to use existential elimination to derive Brillig(a) & Tove(a). how would I do this? I have tried to do separate sub proofs to prove both Brillig(a) & Tove(a) but that doesn't work ...
- 11
-2
votes
1
answer
46
views
-2
votes
3
answers
156
views
To say that something is a logical consequence is always a subjective statement?
"A mathematically proven statement would be absolutely correct if all the axioms and inference rules used in the proof are first accepted as absolutely correct. That is the whole purpose of creating ...
- 355
1
vote
2
answers
240
views
fitch proof. P v Q, Q→ ¬ R, ¬ P, ¬ R → ¬ S GOAL: ¬ S
Need help exercise using the FITCH program format. I'm stuck on where to start. The following 4 steps must be used to prove the goal.
P v Q
Q→ ¬ R
¬ P
¬ R → ¬ S
GOAL: ¬ S
Now I know: ¬ P and P v Q ...
- 19
-1
votes
1
answer
180
views
Solving a proof with 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.
B ^ D
(B^¬A) → ¬C
B → ¬A
(D^E)→ (A v C)
GOAL: ¬E
- 19
3
votes
2
answers
422
views
Deductive argument in which every step and premises are explicitly stated?
Is there in philosophy a word/term describing an argument in which all the premises and rules for derivation from those premises are stated explicitly so that even a computer can check it? I know that ...
- 355
-2
votes
2
answers
118
views
Predicate Logic
How do I derive this?
Pr 1 ∀x(Fx -> ∀xGx)
∴ ∀x(Fx -> ∀x(Gx \ / Hx))
My attempt:
However I cannot used universal derivation due to the free x. I think using ass id and qn would be better ...
- 15
-1
votes
1
answer
199
views
How to solve this Predicate logic derivation
I want to derive the following:
∀x(Fx ↔ (¬Gx ∨ ¬Hx)). ¬∀x(Gx ∧ Hx) → ∃x(Ix ∧ ¬Gx) ∴ ∃xFx → ∃x(Ix ∧ Fx)
This is my attempt:
Any suggestions as to how I continue and derive this? I cannot figure out ...
- 15