PHI103 Southern New Hampshire Indirect Proofs in Natural Deduction Paper

User Generated

gungtvey987654

Humanities

phi103

New Hampshire University

Description

Choose one of the proofs below and use one of the indirect proof techniques (reductio ad absurdum or conditional proof) presented in Chapter 8 to demonstrate the validity of the argument. The proofs below may use any of the rules of inference or replacement rules given in Chapter 8.

1.(G • P) → K, E → Z, ~P → ~ Z, G → (E v L), therefore, (G • ~L) → K

2.(S v T) ↔ ~E, S → (F • ~G), A → W, T → ~W, therefore, (~E • A) → ~G

3.(S v T) v (U v W), therefore, (U v T) v (S v W)

4.~Q → (L → F), Q → ~A, F → B, L, therefore, ~A v B

5.~S → (F → L), F → (L → P), therefore, ~S → (F → P)

In mathematics, it is very common for there to be multiple ways to solve a given a problem; the same can be said of logic. There is often a variety of ways to perform a natural deduction. Now, construct an alternate proof. In other words, if the proof was done using RAA, now use CP; if you used CP, now use RAA. Consider the following questions, as well, in your journal response:

•Will a direct proof work for any of these?

•Can the proof be performed more efficiently by using different equivalence rules?

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

please let me know if you need anything else :D

Conditional Proof
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

(G • P) → K,
E → Z,
~P → ~ Z,
G → (E v L),
therefore, (G • ~L) → K
(G • ~L) assumption
G simplification 6
~L simplificat...


Anonymous
Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags