So, I'm studying for a philosophy midterm, and here's my sample question...
"Explain Lewis' reduction of the prisoner's dilemma to two Newcomb's problems. Is the reduction plausible as a solution to the prisoner's dilemma? Explain why it is or why it is not."
Okay, so I think I do...
The question is:
Show that the following derivability claim holds in SD.
(I'll use ">" to stand in for conditional.)
{(A > F) & (F > D), ((M v H) v C) > A, ~(M v H) & C} entails D
I'm only allowed to use the basic derivation rules of SD:
Reiteration (R)
Conjunction Intro. (&I) and...