Intro to Symbolic Logic: Replacement Rules

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
8 replies · 2K views
Mikaelochi
Messages
40
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
In Virginia Klenk's book Understanding Symbolic Logic (5th edition), I am having trouble with problem 7b in Unit 8 which deals with the replacement rules.
Basically the problem starts with these given premises:
1. ~ (A ∨ (B⊃T))
2. (A ⋅ C) ∨ (W ⊃ ~D)
3. ~(P ∨ T) ⊃ D
4. ~P ≡ ~(T ⋅ S)
And from these premises, I must prove ∴ ~W. This is what I have done so far:
5. (~P ⊃ ~(T ⋅ S)) ⋅ (~(T ⋅ S) ⊃ ~P) B.E. 4
6. ~P ⊃ ~(T ⋅ S) Simp. 5
7. ~(T ⋅ S) ⊃ ~P Simp. 5
8. ~P ⊃ (~T ∨ ~S) DeM. 6
9. (~T ∨ ~S) ⊃ ~P DeM. 7
10. (~P ⋅ ~T) ⊃ D DeM. 3
11. (~A ⋅ ~(B ⊃ T)) DeM. 1
12. ~A Simp. 11
13. ~A ∨ ~C Add. 12
14. ~(A ⋅ C) DeM. 13
15. W ⊃ ~D D.S. 2, 14
To get ~W, all I need is D which I can restate as ~~D. But to get D, I need to get ~(P ∨ T). And the only way I know how to get ~(P ∨ T) is to get (~P ⋅ ~T). So, I would need ~P and ~T alone. I have no idea how to do that. Perhaps this approach is wrong. So, any help would be greatly appreciated. This problem feels borderline impossible.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not familiar with the book and don't have it at hand. Are you given any leeway in the method you use to prove this? What you could do is show
[tex] 1. \land 2. \land 3 \land 4. \Rightarrow \neg W[/tex]
is a tautology. If it's not a tautology, then ##\neg W ## doesn't follow from the premises.
 
You’ve done DeMorgan’s on premise 1. What happens if you convert the conditional to a conjunction?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mikaelochi and Stephen Tashi
Stephen Tashi said:
Is "T" used to denote a proposition with an unspecified truth value? or does it denote a proposition that has the truth value "True"?
No, T is just a symbol representing a claim like A & B.
 
WWGD said:
Does the ##\cdot## stand for 'and'?
Yeah, it stands for "and."
 
TeethWhitener said:
You’ve done DeMorgan’s on premise 1. What happens if you convert the conditional to a conjunction?
I've pieced it together now. Thank you!