How can I make a tautological conclusion from these premises?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ETuten
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving a tautological conclusion from the premises: Cube(a) v Cube(b), Dodec(c) v Dodec(d), and ~Cube(a) v ~Dodec(c). The conclusion sought is Cube(b) v Dodec(d). The participants highlight the use of material conditional and destructive dilemma to establish the conclusion, specifically noting that from the premises, one can deduce ~Cube(a) leading to Cube(b) and ~Dodec(c) leading to Dodec(d). An alternative method presented involves a more complex tautology involving logical implications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propositional logic and tautologies
  • Familiarity with material conditional and destructive dilemma
  • Knowledge of logical equivalences and implications
  • Basic skills in formal proof construction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of propositional logic and tautological reasoning
  • Learn about material conditional and its applications in logical deductions
  • Explore destructive dilemma in depth and its role in logical proofs
  • Practice constructing formal proofs using logical equivalences
USEFUL FOR

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

ETuten
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I am in needof help with the following problem:

Premises : Cube(a) v Cube(b)
Dodec(c) v Dodec(d)
~Cube(a) v ~Dodec(c)

Conclusion: Cube(b) v Dodec(d)


I need to add a sentence to the proof that is tautalogical consequence of two of the premises. I just can't see how to make such a deduction. Any help would be much appreciated
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
well it's quite immediate if take into account material conditional and destructive dillema:
~cube(a)->cube(b)
~dodec(c)->dodec(d)
~Cube(a) v ~Dodec(c)
so from DD you get the conclusion.
but let's say for the sake of argument that you can't use it here, so:
so what about ((Cube(a)vCube(b))->(Dodec(c)vDodec(d))->(~Cube(a)v~Dodec(c))->(Cube(b)vDodec(d))
you only need to check that then next thing is a tautology, quite long:
((~P->Q)->(~R->S)->(P->R)->(~Q->~S))
but as you might see it's all equivalent.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K