Intro to Logic: Constructing Proofs

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a user seeking help with constructing proofs for symbolic arguments in an Intro to Logic course. They express confusion about how to start the proofs, specifically for the arguments (W → U) • ∼X ∴ ∼U → ∼W and F → ∼G, G ∴ ∼F. The user provides a rewritten version of the second argument but still feels lost and is looking for guidance. They emphasize the need for clarity on how to approach these proofs. The thread highlights the challenges beginners face in understanding logical proofs and the importance of community support in learning.
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? :(
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

I On inverse function theorem in Spivak's CoM
Replies
6
Views
3K
MHB Checking Proof of Theorem 6.2.8 Part (ii)
Replies
2
Views
3K
Simple Induction Induction proof of Polynomial Division Theorem
Replies
10
Views
3K
MHB Logic Proof With Rules of Replacement
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Explicit logical justification for last step in epsilon/delta proof?
Replies
20
Views
1K
I Homemorphism in quotient topology
Replies
5
Views
548
Intro Math Plan to revise my learned math & start learning pure math
Replies
5
Views
4K
B Proof of Chain Rule: Understanding the Limits
Replies
3
Views
1K
MHB How to Approach a Logic Proof Involving Conditionals?
Replies
4
Views
2K
A What are your insights on The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever?
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top