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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the logical equivalence between ~(P<->Q) and (P<->~Q) using formal proof methods. Participants express difficulty in deriving the proof in either direction and suggest using a truth table as an alternative. The conversation includes attempts to construct the proof and mentions specific logical rules and axioms necessary for the proof process. There is also a request for clarification on the definitions of negation introduction and elimination as they vary between textbooks. The overall goal is to master the proof of logical equivalence through formal methods.
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?
 
Back
Top