I have a problem I'm working on that I'm a bit stuck on. In this problem we are allowed to use Taut Con in our Fitch proof. The goal is to prove the following from no premises:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

~∃x∀y ( P(x,y) ↔ ~P(y,y))

My initial thought is to begin a subproof with the problem itself, except without the negation, that way if I ultimately conclude in a falsum, I can use negation introduction on the last step to get the goal. Within this subproof I'd imagine to want to use a subproof for Existential elimination, that way I can work with ∀y ( P(a,y) ↔ ~P(y,y)) and using universal elimination get ( P(a,b) ↔ ~P(b,b)). Then if I can prove this biconditional statement to be a contradiction/falsum, I can use existential elimination on the beginning of the subproof to get out of it and use the falsum in my original plan.

I know I'm allowed to use Taut Con but not sure how to apply it to ( P(a,b) ↔ ~P(b,b)) in order to prove it to lead to a contradiction. Any help is much appreciated.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Biconditional to lead to a contradiction problem

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads for Biconditional lead contradiction |
---|

A How does it not contradict the Cohen's theorem? |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**