Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with symbolic-logic
Search options not deleted
user 39793
For questions related to symbolic logic, also known as mathematical logic. Topics might range from philosophical implications of metamathematical results to technical questions.
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 am stuck with …
