Intro to Logic: Constructing Proofs

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on constructing proofs in symbolic logic, specifically addressing two arguments: (W → U) • ∼X ∴ ∼U → ∼W and F → ∼G, G ∴ ∼F. The user expresses confusion about how to initiate the proof construction process as outlined in their textbook. They seek guidance on breaking down the premises and completing the proofs in fewer than 10 steps, highlighting a need for clarity in logical reasoning techniques.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of symbolic logic notation
  • Familiarity with logical operators (e.g., conjunction, disjunction, negation)
  • Basic knowledge of proof construction techniques
  • Experience with logical implications and equivalences
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the rules of inference in propositional logic
  • Learn about truth tables for validating logical arguments
  • Practice constructing proofs using natural deduction
  • Explore resources on symbolic logic textbooks, such as "Logic: A Very Short Introduction"
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students in introductory logic courses, educators teaching symbolic logic, and anyone looking to improve their skills in constructing logical proofs.

Ace189
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey, I'm new to the forum so I'm not sure if I posted this in the right section. I'm taking Intro to Logic and I'm having some problems.

Proofs: Construct proofs for each of the following symbolic arguments.
Commas are used to mark the breaks between premises. (Each proof can be
completed in fewer than 10 steps, including premises.)

^These are the instructions my textbook gives. I have no clue on how to start this at all. Could someone explain this to me please.

2. (W → U) • ∼X ∴ ∼U → ∼W

3. F → ∼G, G ∴ ∼F

Rewrite it :

3) 1.F → ∼G
2.G ∴ ∼F

Other than that I have no clue what to do...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bump... no one has any input at all? :(
 

Similar threads

Undergrad On inverse function theorem in Spivak's CoM
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
MHB Checking Proof of Theorem 6.2.8 Part (ii)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Simple Induction Induction proof of Polynomial Division Theorem
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
MHB Logic Proof With Rules of Replacement
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Explicit logical justification for last step in epsilon/delta proof?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Undergrad Homemorphism in quotient topology
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Intro Math Plan to revise my learned math & start learning pure math
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
High School Proof of Chain Rule: Understanding the Limits
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
MHB How to Approach a Logic Proof Involving Conditionals?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Attempting to find an intuitive proof of the substitution formula
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K