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.
307
questions
7
votes
2
answers
814
views
What exactly is a first-order logic?
Can someone explain in simple terms what exactly is a first-order logic?
From my amateur standpoint, I think that first-order logic is a some kind of a system of symbols and general logical rules and ...
- 325
2
votes
2
answers
142
views
Do computer languages instantiate only predicate calculus?
All the computer languages I'm familiar with, be they imperative or declarative have the same core mechanics (arithmetic and logic).They have the same loops, conditionals etc. Whatever the language it ...
- 29
-1
votes
3
answers
81
views
A question about possibility
If A, then B
~ A
So, possible that B
Valid or not?
My take: Not valid.
Reason:
Valid means if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
That means adding new information should not ...
2
votes
1
answer
603
views
Proof Tree to Fitch Proof
I was wondering if anyone could help me on a proof I've been working on:
I was able to check that it is valid with a proof tree generator (prooftools):
However, I still haven't figured out the proof....
0
votes
2
answers
98
views
Fitch Question Please Help Me [closed]
I'm having trouble understanding writing out a proof. The proof I'm trying to work with is :
How do I reach this goal? Which rules do I use and with which support steps to each rule (proofs to prove ...
user39869
1
vote
2
answers
125
views
Fitch Questions Please Help Me
I'm having trouble understanding writing out a proof. The proof I'm trying to work with is :
How do I reach this goal? Which rules do I use and with which support steps to each rule (proofs to prove ...
user39869
2
votes
3
answers
1k
views
How is Wittgenstein’s “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel's Theorem not obviously correct?
Timm Lampert quotes from Wittgenstein's "notorious paragraph" (§8 of Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, Appendix 3) in http://wab.uib.no/agora/tools/alws/collection-6-issue-1-article-...
- 57
-4
votes
3
answers
321
views
Why do we need model theory to express semantics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory
Why can't semantics be directly expressed in the formal language?
This is the key part of model theory that I don't understand:
https://www.lesswrong.com/...
user39777
1
vote
2
answers
81
views
Hard Predicate Proof Help
I have been working on this proof for over a week now, and I can't seem to figure it out:
Pd ⟷ (Hj & Mj), Gsd, ∀x∀y∃z(((Gxy & (Py ➝ Pz)) & Rxyz) ➝ Gxz), Pe ⟷ ∀x(Hx ➝ Mx), Rsde |- Gse
I ...
2
votes
2
answers
288
views
Can classical logic have deduction with infinite steps
I've been reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on classical logic, and I've been confused about Theorem 9, and the preceding statement. They mention how (*), the clause which ...
-1
votes
1
answer
189
views
Do you know of any mathematical theorem whose proof relies on the use of the principle of explosion (ECQ)?
Ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ) is almost universally recognised in mathematical logic as a valid inference.
In symbolic logic, this inference is usually expressed in the following way: ...
- 6,238
1
vote
2
answers
212
views
Checking the validity of the logical conclusion gleaned from a heated conversation
I have two friends - call them John and Jane.
I was recently privy to an argument concerning a book between John and Jane that went like this:
John: This book did not make a single coherent, ...
- 121
-2
votes
2
answers
515
views
Fitch-style natural deduction
How to prove the following questions?
(a) p from assumption ¬(p → q)
(b) ¬¬p → p from no assumptions.
- 15
1
vote
1
answer
421
views
trouble with rules of inference practice problems [closed]
Prove the following symbolized arguments applying the appropriate rules of inference:
1)
P ∨ Q =
M ⊃ ¬ Q
M =conjunction
Therefore
P
2)
(P V Q) ∧ ¬ Q
P ⊃ R =...
1
vote
3
answers
178
views
How should I use the propositional logic rules for → and ↔?
My question is how should I use the propositional logic rules for → and ↔ (although other rules may be required) to prove the following:
A → B, B → C ⊢ (AvB) → C
A ↔ B ⊢ ¬A ↔ ¬B
Please use the ...
- 11
-1
votes
2
answers
406
views
Known self-evident unproven logical truths
Is there any authoritative source for all known self-evident logical truths that most specialists would agree are true although they can't be proven?
There are many different axiomatic systems, and ...
- 6,238
3
votes
1
answer
79
views
Does 'until' imply a conditional with a negative consequent?
Suppose a father tells his kid that he can play video games whenever he wants.
Then, one day, when the kid fell sick, the father told him that he can play video games until he recovers.
Does this '...
- 2,369
0
votes
1
answer
374
views
Symbolic logic and rules of inference: two questions
Question one:
(C>D) & (D>B)
(B>D) & (E>C)
(D>C)
BvE ∴ DvB
?
?
?
?
DvB
I'm fairly sure this questions has constructive dilemma at the end, but after four hours of working on these two ...
2
votes
1
answer
56
views
Prove the rule that proves X(P) from X(a) preserves derivability in modal system K
I'm trying to solve a problem which asks me to show that the meta-rule defined by deriving X(P) from X(a) preserves derivability (i.e. if ⊢X(a) then ⊢X(P) in modal system K, where a is a sentence ...
- 21
3
votes
1
answer
527
views
S5 proof of ⊢◻(◻P→◻Q)∨◻(◻Q→◻P)
I'm trying to construct an S5 proof of ⊢◻(◻P→◻Q)∨◻(◻Q→◻P).
I know that ϕ∨ψ is equivalent to ~ϕ→ψ, and so what I'm really trying to derive is ~◻(◻P→◻Q)→◻(◻Q→◻P) (which is equivalent to ◊~(◻P→◻Q)→◻(◻Q→◻...
- 31
1
vote
1
answer
519
views
Axiomatic proof of ⊢ □P → □◇□P in S4
As the title explains, I'm trying to give an axiomatic proof of ⊢ □P → □◇□P in S4.
This is simple to prove in B, but I'm struggling to see how it's done in S4. I'd really appreciate any help you ...
- 11
2
votes
1
answer
154
views
Equivalence of strings of modal operators in modal logic
I'm trying to solve a question which asks me to show that for any two finite strings O₁ and O₂ of □s and ◊s, (e.g. □□◊□◊□), that
i) if O₁≡O₂ then OO₁≡OO₂
and
ii) if O₁≡O₂ then O₁O≡O₂O
where O is ...
- 23
1
vote
0
answers
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)...
- 6,238
1
vote
2
answers
157
views
Justification of existing methods of formal logic [duplicate]
What is it that mathematicians, and more likely perhaps philosophers, give as an explicit justification that any method of formal logic, which is actually used by mathematicians, or even by automatic ...
- 6,238
2
votes
1
answer
341
views
Classical logic, symbolic logic, higher-order logic, First-order logic? Learning from scratch
I'd like to ask you a question about logic.
I study philosophy in a Spanish Christian university. In the first year, we study logic but it's the classical one, following Aristotle's Organon, the ...
- 21
2
votes
4
answers
172
views
How would i go about using natural deduction to prove this argument is valid?
How would I use natural deduction to prove this argument is correct?
It's always either night or day. There'd only be a full moon if it were night-time. So, since it's daytime, there's no full moon ...
1
vote
0
answers
149
views
What does philosophy say about the normativity of simulated thought within the analytical tradition?
Given the coherence theory of truth, new propositions must observe previous theory and logic (i.e. every thinking step must be consistent with rules of logic); many analytic philosophies believe it is ...
- 1,065
0
votes
2
answers
838
views
How do I input these statements into a truth table generator?
I have tried inputting my problems into several truth table solvers. I keep getting error messages.
Which solver should I use and how do I change my statements on the homework in order to prevent ...
- 17
0
votes
1
answer
264
views
Does anyone know how to prove ~ ∀x (Ax→Bx) from Ǝx(Ax & ~Bx)?
Ǝx(Ax & ~Bx) Premise
SHOW: ~ ∀x (Ax→Bx)
I really appreciate anyone who could help
The instructions for the homework were to Prove that the obverse of a particular ...
- 17
2
votes
1
answer
1k
views
How to prove (PvQ) & (RvS) : ((P&R) v (P&S)) v ((Q&R) v (Q&S)) by Natural deduction
Another of Tomassi's exercises I can't solve (Logic, page 109, Revision exercise III, 3)
(P v Q) & (R v S) : ((P & R) v (P & S)) v ((Q & R) v (Q & S))
I have to use natural ...
- 123
3
votes
2
answers
310
views
proof for relational predicate logic
I have been working on this problem for over an hour and I think I have simply missed something. I need some help. The rules I am allowed to use are the Basic Inference rules (MP, MT, HS, Simp, Conj, ...
4
votes
5
answers
321
views
What would be an intuitive understanding of Peirce's law?
Wikipedia describes Peirce's law as
In propositional calculus, Peirce's law says that ((P→Q)→P)→P. Written out, this means that P must be true if there is a proposition Q such that the truth of P ...
- 19.2k
0
votes
2
answers
411
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.
- 73
1
vote
4
answers
160
views
Symbolic Logic - Quantifier Proof (w/ Conditionals)
I'm not sure if lines 6 - 7 & 8 - 11 are being done correctly. I feel like it's necessary to prove 12 which proves the rest of the problem.
I'm a bit stuck on lines 8 - 11. I initially tried to ...
user35766
1
vote
1
answer
59
views
Seeking clarification of how an argument from Aristotle is found fallacious using Frege's quantification tools
G. E. M. Anscombe writes in An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus (page 15-16):
Again, the following fallacious piece of reasoning is found in Aristotle: 'All chains of means to ends must ...
- 19.2k
2
votes
2
answers
407
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 ...
4
votes
3
answers
489
views
Can something proved by contradiction always be proved without a proof by contradiction?
Proof by contradictions work by assuming that something is true, and then using logic (along with other assumptions which you know are true) to show that that leads to a contradiction, thus proving ...
- 403
1
vote
4
answers
4k
views
How to prove : (( P → Q ) ∨ ( Q → R )) by natural deduction
Here's another of Tomassi's exercises I can't solve (Logic, page 106):
: (( P → Q ) ∨ ( Q → R ))
I have to use natural deduction and the only rules I know are:
• assumptions,
• modus ponendo ...
- 123
1
vote
1
answer
78
views
Conditional IFF - Not sure what's wrong
"Not a valid application of the rule".
I don't think 7 - 8 is something that really needs to be proven beyond a reit, but I feel like you should be able to...
I'm quite confused on proving Cube(a) ...
user35766
1
vote
2
answers
147
views
Symbolic Conditional Help
Premise:
(Tet(a) ^ Tet(b)) v (Cube(c) ^ Cube(d))
Cube(c) -> Dodec(e)
Goal:
~Tet(a) -> Dodec(e)
Anyone have a clue on where to start with this?
user35766
1
vote
1
answer
541
views
How to solve the derivation?
Derive the following without assumptions:
¬∃xFx↔∀x¬Fx
How do I solve this derivation?
- 343
2
votes
2
answers
281
views
Completeness/Soundess of Second Order Logic
I recently read that Gödel's incompleteness theorem entails that second order logic cannot simultaneously hold the traits of: (i) completeness, (ii) soundness, and (iii) effectiveness.
However, I saw ...
2
votes
2
answers
515
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:
- 125
1
vote
0
answers
62
views
Recommendation: Second Order Logic textbook
I'm looking into Universalist Realism, Nominalism, Trope theory and the application of Second Order logic to each of them, however I have little/no experience with Second Order logic. Please let me ...
1
vote
2
answers
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 ...
- 189
1
vote
2
answers
2k
views
How do you prove B v A |- A v B?
I am having trouble with how to use the assumption, which I feel that I will need for this proof.
If any one can demonstrate or give hints for this proof, I would greatly appreciate it.
3
votes
3
answers
252
views
McGee's Counterexample to Modus Ponens [duplicate]
I'd like to start off by saying that I have read the other posts in the Math StackExchange and here about this paper, but I think my question is a bit different from those although it does stem from ...
user32564
2
votes
2
answers
175
views
Are Statements with Existential Quantifiers General or Particular?
Consider the following argument:
The number 2 is a prime number and is divisible by 2. Thus, some prime number is divisible by 2.
The first statement in this argument concerns a particular, i.e. ...
1
vote
0
answers
56
views
How did Fitch's opposition to the Russell-Whitehead theory of types turn out since the 1950's?
In a footnote to Appendix C of Frederic Fitch's Symbolic Logic (page 217), Fitch writes about his article, "Self-Reference in Philosophy":
It is reprinted here in order to indicate more fully my ...
- 19.2k
1
vote
2
answers
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,
...
- 123