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?
When a company launches a new product do they "come out" with a new product or do they "come up" with a new product?
Definite integral giving negative value as a result?
Could an aircraft fly or hover using only jets of compressed air?
How old can references or sources in a thesis be?
What does "Puller Prush Person" mean?
Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Replacing matching entries in one column of a file by another column from a different file
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
Does an object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?
If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?
How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?
What is the word for reserving something for yourself before others do?
"You are your self first supporter", a more proper way to say it
Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
How does quantile regression compare to logistic regression with the variable split at the quantile?
Arrow those variables!
Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)
How to draw a waving flag in TikZ
A case of the sniffles
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Does detail obscure or enhance action?
Character reincarnated...as a snail
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 Apr 2 at 23:56
Moey mnmMoey mnm
263
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 Apr 2 at 23:56
Moey mnmMoey mnm
263
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 Apr 2 at 23:56
Moey mnmMoey mnm
263
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 Apr 2 at 23:56
Moey mnmMoey mnm
263
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 Apr 2 at 23:56
Moey mnmMoey mnm
263
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 Apr 2 at 23:56
Moey mnmMoey mnm
263
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 Apr 2 at 23:56
Moey mnmMoey mnm
263
asked Apr 2 at 23:56
Moey mnmMoey mnm
263
263
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 Apr 3 at 1:12
AdamAdam
4908
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 3 at 2:44
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 Apr 3 at 1:12
AdamAdam
4908
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 3 at 2:44
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 Apr 3 at 1:12
AdamAdam
4908
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 3 at 2:44
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 Apr 3 at 1:12
AdamAdam
4908
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 Apr 3 at 1:12
AdamAdam
4908
edited 2 days ago
answered Apr 3 at 1:12
AdamAdam
4908
answered Apr 3 at 1:12
AdamAdam
4908
answered Apr 3 at 1:12
AdamAdam
4908
4908
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 3 at 2:44
add a comment |
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 3 at 2:44
1
1
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 3 at 2:44
Just as confirmation, your suggestion for how to proceed worked using the following proof checker: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 3 at 2:44
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
