Prove a proposition using natural deduction

  • Thread starter Thread starter gaobo9109
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Natural
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the proposition p⇒¬q, q∨r ⊢ p⇒r using natural deduction. The initial approach involves proving q∨r ⊢ ¬q⇒r, followed by assuming p and applying Modus Ponens to derive r. Participants emphasize the importance of using the correct set of natural deduction rules, as there is no universal standard. Specific resources for natural deduction rules are provided, including links to documents from the University of Edinburgh and MathPath.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of natural deduction principles
  • Familiarity with Modus Ponens and Disjunctive Syllogism
  • Knowledge of propositional logic
  • Access to specific natural deduction rule sets
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the natural deduction rules outlined in the document from the University of Edinburgh
  • Learn how to apply Modus Ponens in natural deduction proofs
  • Explore Disjunctive Syllogism and its applications in propositional logic
  • Review the concept of Material Implication as a Replacement Rule in proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students of logic, mathematicians, and anyone interested in mastering natural deduction techniques for formal proofs.

gaobo9109
Messages
68
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



p⇒¬q,q∨r⊢p⇒r, prove this using rule of natural deducton

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



My approach is this.

1.Prove that qvr⊢¬q⇒r.
2.Assume p
3.By modus ponen, p⇒r

But the problem I face is how to prove step 1.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't even know what natural deduction is, so this may not be helpful. I had a quick glance at the Wikipedia page on natural deduction, and it gave me the impression that it's not about following the rules of some proof theory (i.e. definition of what a proof is). So can't you just use that ##p\Rightarrow\lnot q## is equivalent to ##q\Rightarrow\lnot p##, and then conclude that this result and ##q\lor r## together imply that ##\lnot p\lor r##?
 
I suggest you start by opening a Conditional Proof with hypothesis p.
Then you immediately get ¬q by Modus Ponens. Now if you can prove r, you can close the Conditional Proof and get the desired conclusion.

In my set of Natural Deduction rules, I'd use Disjunctive Syllogism (DS) inside the Conditional Proof to get the result in your line 1, and then apply Modus Ponens to prove r.

But you may be using a different set of rules. There is no ISO listing of Natural Deduction rules. You need to use the rules your text allows, and if asking a question about a problem under those rules, you need to list the rules.

Here is the set I like: http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/undergraduate/documents/Natural_deduction_rules_propositional.pdf

Alternatively, if you use the following set, you have your line 1 ready-made as a Replacement Rule ('Material Implication'): http://www.mathpath.org/proof/proof.inference.htm
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K