Mastering Logical Equivalence Proofs: (P<->Q) ⊣ ⊢ ~(P<->~Q)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the logical equivalence between ~(P<->Q) and (P<->~Q) using formal proof methods. Participants explore various approaches to constructing the proof and clarify the rules of inference applicable in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in proving the equivalence and mentions having derived (P->~Q) from ~(P<->Q) but struggles to proceed further.
  • Another participant suggests using a truth table to demonstrate the equivalence, questioning the necessity of a formal proof.
  • A participant outlines part of their proof attempt but indicates uncertainty about deriving necessary implications in both directions.
  • There is a call for clarification on which axioms and rules of inference are permitted, noting that these can vary between textbooks.
  • Participants list various rules of inference they have learned, including conjunction introduction, disjunction elimination, and biconditional definitions.
  • One participant points out the lack of standardized names for logical inference rules across different textbooks and requests a reference for clarity.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the definitions of negation introduction and elimination as presented in their textbook.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to the proof, and there are multiple competing views regarding the use of formal proof versus truth tables. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific application of inference rules.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential differences in the definitions and applications of logical inference rules across various textbooks, which may affect the proof process.

Hazzardman
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
~(P<->Q) ⊣ ⊢ (P<->~Q)

I'm suppose to write the proof for this equivalence but I can't figure it in either direction
The closest I got was (P->~Q) from ~(P<->Q) but I can't figure anything else out
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean to show that ##\neg (P \leftrightarrow Q) \equiv (P \leftrightarrow \neg Q)##? Why not just use a truth table?
 
I need to do it by formal proof
this is as far as I got but I can't figure out how to determine the necessay ~Q->P or how to do it in the opposite direction.
Code:
~(P<->Q)                want:P<->~Q
----------------------------------
|P                      want: ~Q
|-------------------------------
||Q                     reductio
||--------------------------------
|||P                    want: Q
|||--------------------------------
|||Q                    reiterate 3
||P->Q                  conditional introduction4-5
|||Q                    want: P
|||-------------------------------------------
|||P                    reiterate 2
||Q->P                  conditional introduction7-8
||P<->Q                 Biconditional definition 6,9
||~(P<>Q)               reiterate 1
|~Q                     indirect proof 3-11
P->~Q                   conditional introduction2-12
 
To answer, we need to know which axioms and rules of inference that are allowed in this context. This can differ in different textbooks.
 
conjunction introduction
disjunction introduction
conjunction elimination
disjunction elimination
conditional elimination
biconditional elimination
negation introduction/elimination proof
conditional introduction proof
bicondional definition
reiteration

these are all the rules I have learned
 
Unfortunately, the rules of logical inference don't all have standardized names. Their titles differ from textbook to textbook. Can you give a link to an article where those rules are written out?
 
I think I know what most of these rules are. But exactly how are negation introduction and elimination defined in your textbook?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K