Propositional Logic Homework Check: Proving B's Guilt

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on a propositional logic homework problem involving the guilt of B based on a series of logical statements. The key deductions include the implications of A's lunch meeting with B and the conditions surrounding B's guilt. The formalization of the statements leads to the conclusion that the irrelevant premises about rain and the teacher's state can be eliminated, simplifying the deduction process. Ultimately, the logical structure confirms that B is guilty based on the remaining premises.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propositional logic and its symbols
  • Familiarity with logical implications and deductions
  • Knowledge of logical operators such as conjunction and disjunction
  • Ability to formalize statements into logical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of propositional logic and truth tables
  • Learn about logical equivalences and simplifications in proofs
  • Explore the use of logical implications in real-world scenarios
  • Practice with more complex logical deduction problems
USEFUL FOR

Students of logic, educators teaching propositional reasoning, and anyone interested in formal proofs and logical deductions.

TheFurryGoat
Messages
41
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Either A or B (names changed) stole the exam answers. Formalize these and check if this is a correct deduction:
1) If A didn't meet B for lunch, then B is guilty or A lives in the countryside
2) If B isn't guilty, then A didn't meet B for lunch and the incident happened after dinner
3) If it happened after dinner, then B is guilty, or A lives in the countryside
4) It rained in the evening, and the teacher slept sound asleep
5) And so, B is guilty

The Attempt at a Solution



"A met B for lunch" = P
"B is guilty" = Q
"A lives in the countryside" = R
"it happened after dinner" = S
"It rained in the evening" = T
"the teacher slept sound asleep" = U

Not actually sure but am I supposed to prove or disprove this? :

P \rightarrow Q \vee R, \neg Q \rightarrow \neg P \wedge S, S \rightarrow Q \vee R, T \wedge U \models Q
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yep, that looks about right.

Actually, T and U sound completely irrelevant, and you can probably reduce it to
<br /> \{ P \rightarrow Q \vee R, \neg Q \rightarrow \neg P \wedge S, S \rightarrow Q \vee R \} \models Q <br />
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K