Prove validity of a cononclusion

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Movingon
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on validating logical conclusions using propositional logic. The first argument, represented as ((p → q) Λ ¬q) → ¬p, is confirmed as a tautology, establishing its validity. The second argument, ((p → q) Λ (¬q V ¬r)) → (¬r → ¬p), is identified as not being a tautology, leading to the conclusion that it is invalid. The third argument, ((p → ¬q) Λ (¬r → p) Λ q) → r, is also validated as a tautology, confirming its correctness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propositional logic and logical operators
  • Familiarity with tautologies and their significance in logical proofs
  • Knowledge of logical implications and their representations
  • Basic skills in symbolic logic notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of logical equivalence and tautologies in propositional logic
  • Learn about the rules of inference and their applications in logical arguments
  • Explore advanced topics in symbolic logic, including quantifiers and predicate logic
  • Practice constructing and validating logical arguments using truth tables
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, philosophy, or computer science, particularly those focusing on logic, reasoning, and proof techniques.

Movingon
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Prove the validity of the following:

1. It rains, Ali is sick. Ali was not sick. ⊢ It didn't rain.

2. I like maths, I study. I study or don't make an exam. ⊢ I don't make an exam, I do not like Maths.

3. I study, I do not fail in maths. I don't play soccer, I study. I failed in maths. ⊢Therefore I played soccer.

My attempts at solutions so far:

1. ((p → q) Λ ¬q) → ¬p This statement is a tautology so this conclusion is true?

2. Slightly trickier but this was my attempt. ((p → q) Λ (¬q V ¬r)) → (¬r → ¬p) This is not a tautology but has only one place that is false so is the argument true or not?

3. ((p → ¬q) Λ (¬r → p) Λ q) → r This is also a tautology so this argument is valid?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just a question on number 2. If q is the proposition, I study, and r is the proposition, i make an exam. Then why is "I study or don't make an exam", [tex]\neg p \vee \neg r[/tex]?
 
daveyinaz said:
Just a question on number 2. If q is the proposition, I study, and r is the proposition, i make an exam. Then why is "I study or don't make an exam", [tex]\neg p \vee \neg r[/tex]?

That was my mistake. Thanks for the correction. It should be [tex]\ p \vee \neg r[/tex]?

So are my attempts at solutions correct? Since 1 and 3 are a tautology, they are right. The 2 is false, because it is not a tautology?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad Proof using Rule of Disjunctive Amplification
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad Proving the Implication of p and (p -> q) to q without Truth Tables
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
MHB Understanding Ke Logic Rules & Finding Contradictions
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
MHB How to give a proof of tautologies?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Undergrad Understanding Implication Problems: Examples & Explanations
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
MHB How to Prove Predicate Logic Validity with Induction?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Proving p -> q: What Does a False Derivation Mean?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Prove Logical Equivalence of P->(Q or R)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Can Modus Ponens and Substitution Solve This Complex Logic Problem?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
High School Unbounded Logical Trees: Constructing Natural Numbers with Logical Trees
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K