Logical Proof: Theorem (Truths of Logic) A iff ~~A

• VeraMason
In summary, the conversation discussed the importance of setting boundaries in relationships. The speakers emphasized the need for clear communication and mutual respect when setting and enforcing boundaries. They also discussed the potential consequences of not having boundaries, such as feeling overwhelmed and sacrificing personal needs for the sake of others. Overall, the conversation highlighted the importance of establishing healthy boundaries for maintaining healthy relationships.
VeraMason
Homework Statement
Prove that the following sentences are theorems (Truths of Logic):
A iff ~~A *Do not use Double Negation*
Relevant Equations
NA
My thought was to break up the sentence into its equivalent form: (A ->~~A) & (~~A -> A)
From there I assumed the premise of both sides to use indirect proofs, so:
1. ~(A -> ~~A) AP
2. ~(~A or ~~A) 1 Implication
3. ~~A & ~~~A 2 DeMorgan's
4. A -> ~~A 1-3 Indirect Proof
5. ~(~~A -> A) AP
6. ~(~~~A or A) 5 Implication
7. ~~~~A & ~A 6 DeMorgan's
8. ~~A -> A 5-7 Indirect Proof
9. (A ->~~A) & (~~A -> A) 4,8 Conjunction
10. A iff ~~A 9 EquivalenceTo me, this looks like it would be correct. Obviously, lines 3 and 7 would look a lot cleaner if I was allowed to use double negation, but in my mind, it shouldn't matter since both lines are a contradiction that essentially says: A & ~A.
Is this correct?

VeraMason said:
Homework Statement:: Prove that the following sentences are theorems (Truths of Logic):
A iff ~~A *Do not use Double Negation*
Relevant Equations:: NA

My thought was to break up the sentence into its equivalent form: (A ->~~A) & (~~A -> A)
From there I assumed the premise of both sides to use indirect proofs, so:
1. ~(A -> ~~A) AP
2. ~(~A or ~~A) 1 Implication
3. ~~A & ~~~A 2 DeMorgan's
4. A -> ~~A 1-3 Indirect Proof
5. ~(~~A -> A) AP
6. ~(~~~A or A) 5 Implication
7. ~~~~A & ~A 6 DeMorgan's
8. ~~A -> A 5-7 Indirect Proof
9. (A ->~~A) & (~~A -> A) 4,8 Conjunction
10. A iff ~~A 9 EquivalenceTo me, this looks like it would be correct. Obviously, lines 3 and 7 would look a lot cleaner if I was allowed to use double negation, but in my mind, it shouldn't matter since both lines are a contradiction that essentially says: A & ~A.
Is this correct?
It looks OK to me, but it seems that you could also do this as a direct proof.
Here's for the first part:
##A \Rightarrow \neg \neg A##
##\Leftrightarrow \neg A \vee \neg \neg A## ( implication is equivalent to a disjunction)
##\Leftrightarrow \neg (A \wedge \neg A)## (de Morgan)
##\Leftrightarrow \neg (\text F)## (A and ~A is false)
##\Leftrightarrow \text T## (negation of false is true)

All the steps are reversible, which makes the first implication true.

VeraMason
@VeraMason Since this statement is not true in general, you should also point out, where you are using the law of excluded middle.

• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
585
• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
3K
• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
382
• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
675
• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
32
Views
2K
• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
917
• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
• General Math
Replies
11
Views
567
• Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
871