MHB How to Prove Predicate Logic Validity with Induction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Voehet
  • Start date Start date
Voehet
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
How would I go about proving that the argument below is valid using the induction method?
(∃x)[P(x)!Q(x)]^(∀y)[Q(y)!R(y)]^(∀x)P(x)!(∃x)R(x)

Thank you very much in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello and welcome to MHB, Voehet! :D

We ask that our users show their progress when posting questions, and that way our helpers can see where you are stuck or may be going astray and will be able to post the best help possible without potentially making a suggestion which you have already tried, which would waste your time and that of the helper.

Can you post what you have done so far?
 
Voehet said:
How would I go about proving that the argument below is valid using the induction method?
(∃x)[P(x)!Q(x)]^(∀y)[Q(y)!R(y)]^(∀x)P(x)!(∃x)R(x)
What does ! stand for?
 
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.
Back
Top