Find Proofs for the following 5 propositional logic statements

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on proving five specific propositional logic statements using formal proofs. The statements include basic tautologies and implications, such as P ⊢ P and P → Q, Q → R ⊢ P → R. The proofs utilize various logical techniques including hypothetical syllogism, modus ponens, and contradiction. Participants in the discussion provide detailed steps for each proof, demonstrating the application of axioms and rules of inference in propositional logic.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propositional logic and its syntax
  • Familiarity with logical axioms and rules of inference
  • Knowledge of techniques such as modus ponens and hypothetical syllogism
  • Ability to construct formal proofs in logic
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of modus ponens in propositional proofs
  • Explore the concept of contradiction and its role in logical reasoning
  • Learn about de Morgan's laws and their implications in logic
  • Investigate the use of conditional proof in formal logic
USEFUL FOR

Students of logic, mathematicians, and anyone interested in formal proof techniques in propositional logic will benefit from this discussion.

josephmary
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
i came acroos the below while studying propositional Logic, can anyone find the proofs

1) P ⊢ P

2) P → Q, Q→R ⊢ P → R

3) P → Q, Q→R, ¬R ⊢ ¬P

4) Q→R ⊢ (PvQ) → (PvR)

5) P →Q ⊢ (P&R) → (Q&R)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you state the axioms you are allowed to use?
 
josephmary said:
i came acroos the below while studying propositional Logic, can anyone find the proofs

1) P ⊢ P

2) P → Q, Q→R ⊢ P → R

3) P → Q, Q→R, ¬R ⊢ ¬P

4) Q→R ⊢ (PvQ) → (PvR)

5) P →Q ⊢ (P&R) → (Q&R)

1)$P$..................Assumption

2)$\neg P$................Hypothesis for contradiction

3)$P\wedge\neg P$............(1),(2) and using addition Introdaction

4)$\neg\neg P$..................From (2) to (3) and using contradiction

5) $P$..................(4) negation elimination

(2) and (3) are easy to do ,you can use hypothetical syllogism for (2) or conditional proof and modus ponens

And hypothetical syllogism , contrapositive and modus ponens for (3) or contradiction,and modus ponens

I will do (4) :

1)$Q\Rightarrow R$..............Assumption

2)$P\vee Q$..................Hypothesis for conditional proof

3)$\neg(P\vee R)$................Hypothesis for contraction

4)$(\neg P\wedge\neg R)$............From (3) and using de Morgan

5)$\neg P$..................(4), Addition elimination (AE)

6)$\neg R$..................(4),AE

7)$\neg R\Rightarrow\neg Q$.............(1),Contrapositive

8)$\neg Q$..................(6),(7),Modus Ponens(MP)

9)$\neg P\Rightarrow Q$..............(2),material implication

10)$Q$.....................(5),(9) MP

11)$Q\wedge\neg Q$................(8),(10) Addition Introduction (AI)

12)$\neg\neg(P\vee R)$...............from (3) to (11) and using contradiction

13)$(P\vee R)$...................(12),negation elimination

14)$(P\vee Q)\Rightarrow(P\vee R)$............from (2) to (13) and using conditional proof

(5) is on the same style with (4) and even easier
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K