# Questions tagged [symbolic-logic]

For questions related to symbolic logic, also known as mathematical logic. Topics might range from philosophical implications of metamathematical results to technical questions.

28 questions
Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
274 views

### Philosophers or philosophical traditions that reject symbolic reasoning

I'm most familiar with philosophy in the context of discussing various flavors of logic, such as independence-friendly logic, various extensions of first-order logic with plurals, relevant logic, and ...
20k views

### What is the difference between Law of Excluded Middle and Principle of Bivalence?

Law of Excluded Middle: In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the so-called three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, ...
1k views

### What does the truth-value of a material implication represent?

This question comes from my attempts to understand what the truth value for a material implication with a false antecedent represents. I have seen several justifications for this convention, usually ...
6k views

### Selection of logical connectives {¬,∨,∧,⇒,⇔} in set theory?

Nearly every treatment of set theory, whether Paul Halmos' Naive Set Theory, Herbert Enderton's Elements of Set Theory, Patrick Suppes' Axiomatic Set Theory, etc. introduce a common set of logical ...
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?
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, ...
826 views

### In modern logic, why does "All S is P" contradict "Some S is not P"?

In modern logic, the existential import is removed from universal statements. So All S is P may still be true if there is no S at all. Contradictory statements must have opposite truth values. Why ...
9k views

### What's the difference among the logical relations :=, =, and ≡?

I understand that ≡ is logical equivalence, "iff". '=' is a symbol for numerical equivalence. And ':=' is an identity claim. I often only see '=' and ':=' used with variables and names, ...
5k views

### Fitch Proof - LPL Exercise 8.17

I am currently finding the third part of this exercise (Conditional 3) difficult to prove. I was sure that my proof was correct, but the Fitch program is saying otherwise. I am finding it ...
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 ...
2k views

### What, at present, are the major unsolved problems of logic?

In the 1900s, Hilbert published a list of 23 (later 24) unsolved problems in mathematics, which sparked increased research into each of them and the subsequent resolution of several of these problems. ...
347 views

### Is there a uniform way of differentiating sufficient and necessary conditions?

I am struggling to formulate symbolic conditional logic rules from basic sentences (studying for the LSAT). It seems that subtle differences in syntax are throwing me off. Is the conditional ...
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 ...
953 views

### Step by step natural deduction: (T > E) ^ (A > L) /... (T v A) > (E v L)

I'm having trouble proving the following using natural deduction: (T > E) ^ (A > L) /... (T v A) > (E v L) I checked the answer but I didn't quite understanding the reason why the proof progressed ...
101 views

### What are the arguments of philosophers against the reasoning which justifies the horseshoe from truth-functionality?

There is a reasoning in mathematical logic which is meant to prove that the horseshoe is the only logical operation which fits our notion of conditional. The reasoning starts from the idea that the ...
5k views

### Prove (¬P ∨ Q) ↔ (P → Q)

How can one use a standard logic proof to prove this without using any premises? I've tried doing subproofs and splitting up ¬P and Q to try to get to P → Q but I'm very stuck!
2k views

### Verum, Falsum, Atoms

I have been somewhat confused about the definition of atoms, or atomic formulae. Some sources say that verum (⊤) and falsum (⊥) are atoms, some not. Is there any consensus within the community or is ...
1 vote
758 views

### What are the rules for discharging a premise in a Zero-Premise Deduction?

If I have the problem (A → B) v (B → C), is there a way to prove this from no premises without first using Material Implication to convert the statement into ¬(A → B) → (B &...
1 vote
97 views

### Wetzel's 'occurences'

I was reading this often quoted article by Linda Wetzel (1993) where she discusses the 'occurence' of expressions in others and Quine's issues with the idea, she describes an expression as a sequence ...
1 vote
251 views

### How to translate "No dolphin sings unless it jumps" into predicate logic?

i have a silly logic question again. How would you translate the following sentence into predicate logic? No dolphin sings unless it jumps. My guess is that it is an E-sentence of the form "no A ...
1 vote
167 views

### Semantic expressiveness of modal logic

I am wondering how much of the semantic of basic philosophical questions can be expressed by formal arguments in modal logic. Here is one argument I formalised myself: P1 ◇ ∀a, ∃x // GNB(x, a) ∧ C(a)...
1 vote
2k views

### How to prove ~ (~P & ~Q) : P ∨ Q by natural deduction

Here's another of Tomassi's exercises I can't solve (Logic, page 106): ~ (~P & ~Q) : P ∨ Q I have to use natural deduction and the only rules I know are: assumptions, modus ponendo ponens, ...
1 vote
5k views

### How to get proof using proof editor and checker

How can I use Natural deduction proof editor and checker or The Logic Daemon to derive the given conclusion from the given premise: (∃x) ( Fx ∙ (y) (Fy → y = x) ) / (∃x) (y) (Fy ≡ y = x) It tells me ...
1 vote
464 views

### Can inductive arguments be made in first order logic and, if not, why not?

After reading a question by rus9384 Why is faulty generalization called an informal fallacy? I wondered whether induction can be part of any argument in first order logic (FOL). rus9384 symbolized ...
57 views

### Question about proving a set that is quantificationally inconsistent in PD+ (Finished the proof but want it to be checked)

Does ∃x(Nx & ~Nx) contradiction itself? Is there an error in my proof? Thank you
2k views

### Why does the Principle of Explosion not make Mathematical Logic inconsistent? [closed]

Step Proposition Derivation 1 ------P --------- Assumption 2 ---- ¬P --------- Assumption 3 ----- P ∨ Q ----- Disjunction introduction (1) 4 ----- Q --------- Disjunctive syllogism (3,2) https:... 