Im stuck and having trouble with ¬P ∨ Q Prove: P → Q Planned maintenance scheduled April...
Converting a text document with special format to Pandas DataFrame
Can I take recommendation from someone I met at a conference?
Sorting the characters in a utf-16 string in java
Can a Wizard take the Magic Initiate feat and select spells from the Wizard list?
Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?
Can gravitational waves pass through a black hole?
How was Lagrange appointed professor of mathematics so early?
Who's this lady in the war room?
2 sample t test for sample sizes - 30,000 and 150,000
A German immigrant ancestor has a "Registration Affidavit of Alien Enemy" on file. What does that mean exactly?
Does the Pact of the Blade warlock feature allow me to customize the properties of the pact weapon I create?
Why aren't road bike wheels tiny?
Is my guitar’s action too high?
Does using the Inspiration rules for character defects encourage My Guy Syndrome?
How to break 信じようとしていただけかも知れない into separate parts?
Assertions In A Mock Callout Test
What kind of equipment or other technology is necessary to photograph sprites (atmospheric phenomenon)
Is "ein Herz wie das meine" an antiquated or colloquial use of the possesive pronoun?
Why does my GNOME settings mention "Moto C Plus"?
Help Recreating a Table
/bin/ls sorts differently than just ls
Will I be more secure with my own router behind my ISP's router?
Who can become a wight?
Coin Game with infinite paradox
Im stuck and having trouble with ¬P ∨ Q Prove: P → Q
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Help with simple deductive proofInvalid arguments with true premises and true conclusionWhat are the important effects of studying logic?If F is a sufficient condition for G, is lacking G a sufficient condition for lacking F?How to prove (P ∧ ¬Q) ↔ ¬(P → Q)Prove (¬P ∨ Q) ↔ (P → Q)How to prove the tautology ¬(P↔¬P) using Fitch?How do you prove B v A |- A v B?I have trouble understanding this fallacy: “If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A.”trouble with rules of inference practice problems
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ¬P ∨ Q?
logic
New contributor
add a comment |
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ¬P ∨ Q?
logic
New contributor
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
add a comment |
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ¬P ∨ Q?
logic
New contributor
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ¬P ∨ Q?
logic
logic
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
61
61
New contributor
New contributor
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
2
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62058%2fim-stuck-and-having-trouble-with-%25ef%25bf%25a2p-%25e2%2588%25a8-q-prove-p-%25e2%2586%2592-q%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
add a comment |
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
add a comment |
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ¬P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ¬P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
answered 51 mins ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,03418
1,03418
add a comment |
add a comment |
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62058%2fim-stuck-and-having-trouble-with-%25ef%25bf%25a2p-%25e2%2588%25a8-q-prove-p-%25e2%2586%2592-q%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
4 hours ago