Questions tagged [propositional-logic]
The propositional-logic tag has no usage guidance.
59
questions
0
votes
0answers
34 views
Language, Proof, Logic - Problem 7.32 solution verification: exclusive disjunction introduction and elimination formal rules [duplicate]
In the book "Language, Proof, and Logic" there is the following problem 7.32 that doesn't have an available solution that I can check.
Later on in the book, there is the following comment:
...
0
votes
1answer
61 views
What does it mean, intuitively and then also precisely, that a particular English word is not truth functional?
What does it mean, intuitively and then also precisely, when we say that a particular English word is not truth functional? Let me present some examples.
Example 1
As far as I can tell from a book I ...
-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
53 views
How to interpret "P ⟺ Q is true if and only if the first-order logic sentence P ↔ Q is logically necessary"?
I'm learning about the two truth-functional connectives "material conditional" and "material biconditional".
I came across this particular snippet in a book:
An important fact ...
1
vote
1answer
38 views
Prove that if S tautological consequence of P, S tautological consequence of Q, then S tautological consequence of P | Q
Consider the following argument:
S is a tautological consequence of P.
S is a tautological consequence of Q.
Therefore, S is a tautological consequence of P | Q.
I wish to give an informal proof of ...
1
vote
2answers
79 views
Why is any sentence a logical consequence of a set of inconsistent premises?
If a set of premises is inconsistent, there is no situation that makes all the premises true simultaneously.
Given a sentence S, there is no situation in which a conjunction of a set of inconsistent ...
1
vote
2answers
114 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
1answer
117 views
If A entails C, and B entails C, why doesn’t (A and B) necessarily entail C?
The original question is in Greek letters Γ and Δ, each representing a set of sentences, and φ representing an individual sentence (atomic proposition). The question is from Introduction to Logic by ...
1
vote
2answers
91 views
Is Propositional Logic (or Zeroth-order logic) the most basic form of logic?
Could all systems of logic (not only classical logic 1, but also non-classical logics like intuitionistic logic 2, quantum logic 3, many-valued logic 4, modal logic 5, paraconsistent logic 6...etc) be ...
1
vote
1answer
53 views
Is "Not all S are P", ambiguous?
I read Kelley's book (the art of reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking 4th edition). On page 150, I found this statement:
"A special problem arises with statements that have ...
1
vote
1answer
70 views
Am I correct that tautologies and contradictions are NOT truth-functional?
We call a statement truth functional if its truth value depends on truth value of its parts. Like A⊃B can be true or false, depending on truth values of A and B.
But, it's not the case with ...
1
vote
0answers
84 views
How to define ‘impossible’ using propositional modal logic?
I am trying to define impossibility using the symbols we have in propositional modal logic. I got ‘negation diamond alpha’ in mind as equivalent to ‘it is impossible that alpha’. It that correct and ...
0
votes
0answers
60 views
Understanding David Deutsch's assertion about the laws of physics as emerging from those of biology
In the Chapter 1 of the Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch says the following:
There is no reason to regard high-level theories as in any way 'second-class citizens'.
Each of them has implications for ...
0
votes
0answers
40 views
so im arranging these arguments from strongest to weakest, and am confused?
Either reublocrats are uninformed, or democrans or independents are uninformed
it is not true that republocrats are uninformed
someone is uninformed
either republocrats are informed or they are not ...
0
votes
0answers
106 views
Issue with the interpretation of Propositional Logic
I’m having an issue with the terminology and perception authors use. Some authors perceive PL as a branch of logic “with subsets” with classical or truth-functional PL as these subsets. Other perceive ...
-1
votes
1answer
99 views
i don't understand modus ponens
I'm learning about modus ponens in propositional logic but it doesn't makes sense to me
I can think of an examples where a true premises leads to a false
conclusion:
p -> q
p
Therefore q
If the kid ...
2
votes
3answers
544 views
Structure of "affirming the consequent fallacy"
The formal structure of affirming the consequent fallacy is,
P1 - If A is true, then B is true
P2 - B is true
---------------------------------
C - Therefore, A is true
Now if I give another similar ...
2
votes
1answer
60 views
Propositions as set of possible worlds in FOL
In possible world semantics for propositional calculus, possible worlds are usually taken to be models for propositional formulas (the set of valuations in which a certain formula is true)
In first ...
-2
votes
1answer
63 views
Show the following is valid in SD+: How to solve this derivation
This is not Homework.l do this for fun and expand my learning.
I am obviously having difficulties with SD+,thus l post many problems.
I am using the Logic Book
Problem has be done in SD+
Using goal ...
0
votes
1answer
50 views
I am stuck on SD+ style proof and need to know how to do it
I am using SD+. Most of the derivation has to
be done using it
I am finding this one tricky
I request help or hints to solve it
Derive L => H
1.~L v (~Z v ~U). Assume
2.(U & G) v H Assume
3.Z. ...
0
votes
0answers
27 views
How to apply Transdisciplinarity Logic to Truth Tables?
I've been having trouble trying to figure out Transdisciplinarity Logic. I have had little success while trying to research on my own, finding sources that are either too difficult to understand or ...
0
votes
1answer
53 views
Understanding Damore's statement about decreasing the false negative rate
At page 6 of his well-known memo, James Damore talks about the harm of Google's biases:
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the ...
2
votes
0answers
49 views
What is 'expendable' in logic and how to explain 'tautology' given this image?
This image is from http://www.nfillion.com/index.php/teaching/9-logic-112. According to this, a proposition can have 4 basic properties: (1) necessarily, (2) not possibly, (3) missing, and (4) ...
0
votes
2answers
202 views
Is the material implication the correct model of conditional reasoning in mathematics?
Question:
Do you believe that the material implication correctly models the kind of conditional reasoning necessary in mathematics to prove a theorem?
Example:
If x > y and y > 0, then x > ...
0
votes
2answers
60 views
Is there a symbol for what a logic gate yields?
Is there a logic symbol for what output a logic gate yields?
For instance, for an AND gate:
A
B
A ^ B
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
F
F
F
F
I want to propagate A ^ B into output C, but I wouldn't want to use ...
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
1answer
67 views
Equivalence of truth conditions
Truth conditions, roughly, are the way things should be in order for a sentence to be true.
For instance, the condition for the sentence "Paul is a cat" is that the individual denoted by &...
-2
votes
1answer
34 views
How to prove: 1. (A^B)v(A^C) 2. (AvD) -> E //E
This proof has stumped me. It seems that getting (AvD) alone then using Modens ponens to therefore prove E would be the correct way of going about things but I cannot seem to find a way to get (AvD) ...
0
votes
0answers
15 views
Tautology of p implies q and not p or q [duplicate]
I'm learning about tautologies right now. I see that a tautology is when two propositional statements have the same truth values. But I'm struggle with the truth table my professor provided about the ...
2
votes
1answer
73 views
What are some of the struggles that come with teaching formal logic? [closed]
I'm currently an undergraduate student who wants to do research on the pedagogy of formal logic. As a result, I wanted to know what are some challenges that instructors (or even students for that ...
2
votes
1answer
322 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 ...
0
votes
1answer
31 views
Is my interpretation of "and" correct in these statements?
Let A mean "Equation A has a solution" and B mean "Equation B has no solution." I am a little confused, so I wrote down some possibilities and I wish to see if my interpretation of ...
2
votes
3answers
158 views
Are there multiple definitions of validity?
I have recently started learning the basics of propositional logic. According to http://intrologic.stanford.edu/chapters/chapter_03.html, a sentence is valid if and only if it is satisfied by every ...
0
votes
2answers
132 views
Is a vacuously true argument a valid argument? [duplicate]
From what I know, given some argument, the argument is valid when it has true premises that lead to a true conclusion. Now, what if the premises were false? I mean, the conclusion would be vacuously ...
0
votes
0answers
31 views
Is the truth table method for valuating 0th order sentences not a proof system in its own right?
This might sound a bit opinionated or a bit too pedantic, but in every book (that I've looked at) about propositional logic, usually this chain of events happens:
Discuss the alphabet and grammar of ...
-2
votes
2answers
114 views
How would I start a formal proof for the conclusion (P → Q) ↔ ¬ (P ∧ ¬ Q) with no premises? [closed]
There are no premises, and I'm doing this in fitch
4
votes
2answers
1k views
Is the sentence "all apples are red" an atomic sentence?
In An Introduction to Logic by Patrick Suppes, an atomic sentence is defined as a sentence that contains no sentential connective. However, in a later chapter, a sentence is defined as a formula which ...
2
votes
3answers
203 views
If-then statement and time between antecedent and consequent
Suppose the following statement. "If I kick the ball then the ball will hit the wall." Can this sentence have a truth value? I mean the time that I kick the ball, it hasn't reached the wall so the ...
0
votes
0answers
23 views
Is there a word for instantiating all the things that I suppose in my argument?
Let's say I'm in the propositional logic and I say: "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore Socrates is mortal." Sure, it is true that "Socrates is mortal" is the valid conclusion. But it is ...
5
votes
6answers
2k views
What is wrong with these two conditionals?
Is it true that these two conditionals if A then B and if not-A then B cannot be both true?
Example :
"If I stay then I will eat fish"
"If I didn't stay then I will eat fish"
The reason I think ...
-2
votes
1answer
66 views
Proof that if an inference holds in propositional logic, then the inference holds in supervaluationism
I am currently trying to work on problem 8, but I'm not sure exactly how to start it.
I was thinking of starting it by trying to prove that phi is indeed PL valid. I would have to show how that is ...
0
votes
1answer
96 views
How to solve: Show that a formula is PL-valid if and only if it is LP-valid [closed]
I don't really understand this problem, but I'm going to spill out what I've taken notes on. I know that in order to solve this we would need to use the contrapositive in each direction.
I'm going ...
3
votes
1answer
102 views
Classical propositional logic. Are all formulas sentences?
Let L the language of classical (two-valued) propositional logic consisting of a denumerable set of sentential variables as well as the usual operations of negation, disjunction, conjunction, ...
1
vote
1answer
176 views
Proving A ⊨ B iff ⊨A → B
Let A and B represent arbitrary formulas.
Also let 1 ≡ True and 0 ≡ False
Prove that A ⊨ B iff ⊨A → B
For my proof, I break down the biconditional into two conditionals and prove each conditional.
...
0
votes
0answers
23 views
looking for tool(s) for making diagrams with
I am looking for some tool to create symbolic logic derivation diagrams with horizontal and vertical scope line and sub derivations. Then I want to be able to add them to a word document. Word doesn'...
0
votes
1answer
46 views
Is this proof valid (noob)?
I'm trying to prove that from P we can conclude that Q implies (P and Q). I understand how this is true intuitively, but I'm just getting a grasp of how to use propositional logic, its rules, etc. to ...
-4
votes
1answer
279 views
do 'p & ~p' , '~p & ~~p' equal 'either p or ~p'? [closed]
In classical logic,
(1) p & ~p is equivalent to (2) ~p & ~~p;
if we read 'p & ~p' as p, ~p are both true/the case, and if we read '~p & ~~p' as p, ~p are both false/not the case (...
2
votes
1answer
49 views
A set of three statements, of which only two at a time can be true: is there a specific term for this type of combination game?
Here's two examples of what I'm talking about
1
An ideal citizen would be smart, ethical and politically engaged.
However, what usually happens in reality is this:
If they're smart ...
4
votes
1answer
142 views
Did William of Soissons prove the law of explosion in the 12th century?
In the 12th century, William of Soissons attempted to prove that any proposition can be inferred from a contradiction. I've adapted his proof into a logical system I'm more familiar with:
Let E ...
-1
votes
1answer
94 views
How to derive P > (Q > R) from (P > Q) > R in Fitch?
I am having a little bit of difficulty coming up with a Fitch-style natural deduction proof.
Presumably, I need to use a few conditional introduction rules, but I am not sure what I can get out of ...
