
logic - How is the correct way to read out negation in symbolic ...
Jan 2, 2017 · negation only applies to propositions. (p v q) is a proposition, call it r, so read ~(p v q) as "it is not the case that the proposition r is true".
logic - ~ (P&Q) derive to ~Pv~Q - Philosophy Stack Exchange
Stack Exchange Network. Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
logic - What reasons do I have to believe that ~p->~q and pV~q …
Jan 3, 2020 · I understand the reasoning for why pVq implies ~p->q, but not the converse. What reasons are there to believe ~p->~q implies pV~q, other than to make the whole material implication system neat?
How to prove (PvQ) & (RvS) : ((P&R) v (P&S)) v ((Q&R) v (Q&S)) by ...
Stack Exchange Network. Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
How to prove ~ (~P & ~Q) : P ∨ Q by natural deduction
The argument schema is not valid; check it with both P and Q false.. Thus, we cannot prove that (¬P & ¬Q) : P v Q.
How to prove P ∨ Q : ~ (~P & ~Q) with natural deduction
Sep 1, 2017 · @DiegoRuizHaro You have reductio ad absurdum (RAA) which is similar. I don't have that rule in the proof checker that I am using, but I imagine it goes the same way except instead of introducing the contradiction and then discharging the assumption with an indirect proof, you may have to reach something like P & ~P and then discharge the assumption with an RAA rule of some sort.
How do I input these statements into a truth table generator?
(((pvq)->r)&&(q))->(r) Each truth table generator will have its own input syntax so you will have to be careful to follow that. Regardless, take each premise and surround it with parentheses and then "and" them together.
fitch proof. P v Q, Q→ ¬ R, ¬ P, ¬ R → ¬ S GOAL: ¬ S
Aug 24, 2022 · As PvQ is true and as P is not true you know that Q must be true and as from Q follows not R you get not R from which follows not S qed. So the problem isn't were to start but how to write that in this weird system right?
"→" is the symbol for material implication. Is there such a thing as ...
Apr 19, 2016 · I think that's more of a feature of modal logic, not the operator itself. For instance you could say (PvQ), ⋄(PvQ), or (PvQ). The function of "v" won't change, but the modal operator changes the truth conditions of the expression within its scope. I'm not too sure if what I said is true though haha. –
How can I prove a contradiction follows from P <-> Q and P -> ~Q?
Mar 9, 2016 · Stack Exchange Network. Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.