Intro to Symbolic Logic: Replacement Rules

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a symbolic logic problem involving a set of premises from which participants aim to derive a conclusion, specifically proving that ~W follows from the given premises. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanations related to symbolic logic rules and transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines the premises and their attempts to derive ~W, expressing uncertainty about how to proceed, particularly in obtaining ~P and ~T.
  • Another participant suggests checking if the conjunction of all premises implies ~W, questioning whether it is a tautology.
  • Questions arise regarding the interpretation of the symbol "T," with some participants seeking clarification on whether it represents an unspecified truth value or a true proposition.
  • Clarification is sought on the meaning of the symbol "⋅" as representing 'and.'
  • A suggestion is made to convert the conditional statements into conjunctions to facilitate the proof process.
  • One participant acknowledges progress in understanding the problem after receiving input from others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and approaches to the problem, with no consensus reached on the best method to derive the conclusion. Multiple viewpoints and suggestions are presented without agreement on a definitive solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working with symbolic logic rules, and some assumptions about the symbols and their meanings may not be fully clarified. The discussion reflects the complexity of deriving conclusions from the given premises.

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
<br /> 1. \land 2. \land 3 \land 4. \Rightarrow \neg W<br />
is a tautology. If it's not a tautology, then ##\neg W ## doesn't follow from the premises.
 
Mikaelochi said:
1. ~ (A ∨ (B⊃T))

Is "T" used to denote a proposition with an unspecified truth value? or does it denote a proposition that has the truth value "True"?
 
Does the ##\cdot## stand for 'and'?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nuuskur
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
Mikaelochi said:


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)
So, I would need ~P and ~T alone.

Take @TeethWhitener suggestion and get ##(\sim A) \cdot B \cdot( \sim T)## from 1.
Then use 4. to get ##\sim P##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mikaelochi
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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K