How to Prove P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) using Natural DeductionUsing natural deduction rules give a formal proofIntroductory Natural Deduction QuestionProve A ∨ D from A ∨ (B ∧ C) and (¬ B ∨ ¬ C) ∨ D ( LPL Q6.26) without using --> or material implicationGiven P ∨ ¬ P prove (P → Q) → ((¬ P → Q) → Q) by natural deductionHow to prove ¬(p→q) ⊢ p &¬qDoes anyone have a proof checker they prefer using for modal logic?How do you prove law of excluded middle using tertium non datur?How to prove : (( P → Q ) ∨ ( Q → R )) by natural deductionHow to prove ‘∃xP(x)’ from ‘¬∀x(P(x)→Q(x))’How would i go about using natural deduction to prove this argument is valid?
Detention in 1997
Why was the shrinking from 8″ made only to 5.25″ and not smaller (4″ or less)?
Can I run a new neutral wire to repair a broken circuit?
How to prevent "they're falling in love" trope
Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?
How can I deal with my CEO asking me to hire someone with a higher salary than me, a co-founder?
Apex Framework / library for consuming REST services
How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?
How do conventional missiles fly?
Do scales need to be in alphabetical order?
Examples of smooth manifolds admitting inbetween one and a continuum of complex structures
How do I gain back my faith in my PhD degree?
iPad being using in wall mount battery swollen
Venezuelan girlfriend wants to travel the USA to be with me. What is the process?
How do I deal with an unproductive colleague in a small company?
Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?
Is it logically or scientifically possible to artificially send energy to the body?
Mathematica command that allows it to read my intentions
How dangerous is XSS?
Size of subfigure fitting its content (tikzpicture)
GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Extract rows of a table, that include less than x NULLs
Ambiguity in the definition of entropy
How to Prove P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) using Natural Deduction
Using natural deduction rules give a formal proofIntroductory Natural Deduction QuestionProve A ∨ D from A ∨ (B ∧ C) and (¬ B ∨ ¬ C) ∨ D ( LPL Q6.26) without using --> or material implicationGiven P ∨ ¬ P prove (P → Q) → ((¬ P → Q) → Q) by natural deductionHow to prove ¬(p→q) ⊢ p &¬qDoes anyone have a proof checker they prefer using for modal logic?How do you prove law of excluded middle using tertium non datur?How to prove : (( P → Q ) ∨ ( Q → R )) by natural deductionHow to prove ‘∃xP(x)’ from ‘¬∀x(P(x)→Q(x))’How would i go about using natural deduction to prove this argument is valid?
How would a formal Fitch proof look like.
I am given P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) to prove using Natural Deduction of predicate logic.
I am confused on how to proceed with the proof.
Please advice me on how to go about with this.
Thanks in advance
logic proof fitch quantification
asked yesterday
Moey mnmMoey mnm
241
New contributor
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
How would a formal Fitch proof look like.
I am given P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) to prove using Natural Deduction of predicate logic.
I am confused on how to proceed with the proof.
Please advice me on how to go about with this.
Thanks in advance
logic proof fitch quantification
asked yesterday
Moey mnmMoey mnm
241
New contributor
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
How would a formal Fitch proof look like.
I am given P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) to prove using Natural Deduction of predicate logic.
I am confused on how to proceed with the proof.
Please advice me on how to go about with this.
Thanks in advance
logic proof fitch quantification
asked yesterday
Moey mnmMoey mnm
241
New contributor
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
How would a formal Fitch proof look like.
I am given P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) to prove using Natural Deduction of predicate logic.
I am confused on how to proceed with the proof.
Please advice me on how to go about with this.
Thanks in advance
logic proof fitch quantification
logic proof fitch quantification
asked yesterday
Moey mnmMoey mnm
241
New contributor
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Moey mnmMoey mnm
241
New contributor
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Moey mnmMoey mnm
241
New contributor
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Moey mnmMoey mnm
241
asked yesterday
Moey mnmMoey mnm
241
241
New contributor
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Moey mnm is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
HINT: I'll sketch the derivation. Since the theorem is a conditional, try using conditional proof/conditional-introduction by assuming P(a) and trying to derive ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) from it. Here, to derive it, I would try an indirect proof by assuming the negation ¬∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) and trying to derive a contradiction. Use quantifier equivalence rules to get ∃x¬(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
The next steps will be a little different depending on your list of rules (quantifier rules typically come with restrictions to ensure the rules are sound, and different texts will use different restrictions). Roughly, we can let y be the individual such that ¬(P(y) ∨ ¬(y = a)). Apply De Morgan's law to get ¬P(y) ∧ (y = a). Since y = a, it must be that ¬P(a), contradicting our assumption that P(a). Hence our contradiction completing the indirect proof of ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
Hope this helps!
answered yesterday
AdamAdam
4458
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
22 hours ago
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
);
);
Moey mnm 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%2f61580%2fhow-to-prove-pa-%25e2%2586%2592-%25e2%2588%2580xpx-%25e2%2588%25a8-%25c2%25acx-a-using-natural-deduction%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
HINT: I'll sketch the derivation. Since the theorem is a conditional, try using conditional proof/conditional-introduction by assuming P(a) and trying to derive ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) from it. Here, to derive it, I would try an indirect proof by assuming the negation ¬∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) and trying to derive a contradiction. Use quantifier equivalence rules to get ∃x¬(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
The next steps will be a little different depending on your list of rules (quantifier rules typically come with restrictions to ensure the rules are sound, and different texts will use different restrictions). Roughly, we can let y be the individual such that ¬(P(y) ∨ ¬(y = a)). Apply De Morgan's law to get ¬P(y) ∧ (y = a). Since y = a, it must be that ¬P(a), contradicting our assumption that P(a). Hence our contradiction completing the indirect proof of ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
Hope this helps!
answered yesterday
AdamAdam
4458
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
22 hours ago
add a comment |
HINT: I'll sketch the derivation. Since the theorem is a conditional, try using conditional proof/conditional-introduction by assuming P(a) and trying to derive ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) from it. Here, to derive it, I would try an indirect proof by assuming the negation ¬∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) and trying to derive a contradiction. Use quantifier equivalence rules to get ∃x¬(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
The next steps will be a little different depending on your list of rules (quantifier rules typically come with restrictions to ensure the rules are sound, and different texts will use different restrictions). Roughly, we can let y be the individual such that ¬(P(y) ∨ ¬(y = a)). Apply De Morgan's law to get ¬P(y) ∧ (y = a). Since y = a, it must be that ¬P(a), contradicting our assumption that P(a). Hence our contradiction completing the indirect proof of ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
Hope this helps!
answered yesterday
AdamAdam
4458
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
22 hours ago
add a comment |
HINT: I'll sketch the derivation. Since the theorem is a conditional, try using conditional proof/conditional-introduction by assuming P(a) and trying to derive ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) from it. Here, to derive it, I would try an indirect proof by assuming the negation ¬∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) and trying to derive a contradiction. Use quantifier equivalence rules to get ∃x¬(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
The next steps will be a little different depending on your list of rules (quantifier rules typically come with restrictions to ensure the rules are sound, and different texts will use different restrictions). Roughly, we can let y be the individual such that ¬(P(y) ∨ ¬(y = a)). Apply De Morgan's law to get ¬P(y) ∧ (y = a). Since y = a, it must be that ¬P(a), contradicting our assumption that P(a). Hence our contradiction completing the indirect proof of ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
Hope this helps!
answered yesterday
AdamAdam
4458
HINT: I'll sketch the derivation. Since the theorem is a conditional, try using conditional proof/conditional-introduction by assuming P(a) and trying to derive ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) from it. Here, to derive it, I would try an indirect proof by assuming the negation ¬∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) and trying to derive a contradiction. Use quantifier equivalence rules to get ∃x¬(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
The next steps will be a little different depending on your list of rules (quantifier rules typically come with restrictions to ensure the rules are sound, and different texts will use different restrictions). Roughly, we can let y be the individual such that ¬(P(y) ∨ ¬(y = a)). Apply De Morgan's law to get ¬P(y) ∧ (y = a). Since y = a, it must be that ¬P(a), contradicting our assumption that P(a). Hence our contradiction completing the indirect proof of ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)).
Hope this helps!
answered yesterday
AdamAdam
4458
edited 6 hours ago
answered yesterday
AdamAdam
4458
answered yesterday
AdamAdam
4458
answered yesterday
AdamAdam
4458
4458
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
22 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
22 hours ago
1
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
22 hours ago
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
22 hours ago
add a comment |
Moey mnm is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Moey mnm is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Moey mnm is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Moey mnm 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%2f61580%2fhow-to-prove-pa-%25e2%2586%2592-%25e2%2588%2580xpx-%25e2%2588%25a8-%25c2%25acx-a-using-natural-deduction%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
