MHB Help with Logic Proof: Establishing 7.

  • Thread starter Thread starter agapito
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Proof
agapito
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Consider the following proof from Copi's "Symbolic Logic", p. 109:

1. (∃x) ¬Fx Assumption

2. ¬Fy Assumption

3. (∀x) Fx Assumption

4. Fy 3, UI

5. (∀x) Fx ⇒ Fy 3-4, CP

6. ¬(∀x) Fx 5,2 MT

7. ¬(∀x) Fx 1,2-6, EI

8. (∃x) ¬Fx ⇒ ¬(∀x) Fx 1-7, CP

9. (∀x) Fx ⇒ ¬(∃x) ¬Fx 8, Trans, DN

I cannot understand how 7.- is established, everything else is clear. Can someone explain how 1,2-6, EI results in 7. ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't (1), "There exist x such that Fx is not true", and (3), "for all x Fx is true", contradict one another?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top