MHB Rules of Inference: Get Help with Hypothesis 1 & 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eluki
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rules
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on clarifying the relationship between two hypotheses in a logical proof. Participants emphasize the need for precision in defining what the problem is asking, particularly regarding the term "imply." Confusion arises from the perceived relationship between the statements of the hypotheses, which may not necessarily be consistent or directly related. A detailed proof is provided to illustrate the logical connections and steps involved in deriving conclusions from the hypotheses. The conversation encourages further exploration and understanding of the rules of inference in mathematical logic.
Eluki
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am havinga bit of challenge with the following question.
What seems confusing to me is th relationship between hypothesis 1 and 2.
I will appreciate all help. View attachment 9403
 

Attachments

  • WhatsApp Image 2019-12-06 at 22.18.24.jpeg
    WhatsApp Image 2019-12-06 at 22.18.24.jpeg
    108.4 KB · Views: 130
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to the forum.

Eluki said:
I am having a bit of challenge with the following question.
It would help if you write exactly what the problem is asking you to do. And I mean as precisely as possible: saying "Prove that the hypotheses imply the conclusion" is not precise enough because the word "imply" can have several different meanings in mathematical logic.

Eluki said:
What seems confusing to me is the relationship between hypothesis 1 and 2.
Would you be puzzled if I said that I find confusing the relationship between the following statements: "All my pets are dogs or cats" and "If a pet is a cat, it is a feline"? I suspect you would because it is not even clear what I mean by a relationship: these are two separate statements, nobody claims that they have to be consistent, or follow from each other, or anything like that. What relationship did you find or want to find between hypotheses 1 and 2, and why is this relationship confusing?
 
Here's a proof (fill out the details).
1. Ax (Px v Qx)
2. Ax (~Qx v Sx)
3. Ax (Rx ->~Sx)
4. Ex ~Px
5. Pa v Qa , universal, 1.
6. ~Qa v Sa universal, 2.
7. Ra ->~Sa , universal, 3.
8. ~Pb, existential, 4.
9.Qb ,5,8 DS.
10. ~~Qb, 9, DN.
11. Sb 7,6, DS.
12. ~~Sb ->~Rb 7, MT.
13. ~Rb , 11,12, MP.
14. Ex ~Rx, QED.
 
Eluki said:
Hi,

I am havinga bit of challenge with the following question.
What seems confusing to me is th relationship between hypothesis 1 and 2.
I will appreciate all help. View attachment 9403
proof:
1) $\forall x(P(x)\vee Q(x)$

2)$\forall x( \neg Q(x)\vee S(x))$

3)$\forall x (R(x)\rightarrow\neg S(x))$

4)$\exists x(\neg P(x))$

5) $(P(x)\vee Q(x)$.......from one and using universal elimination UE

6)$ \neg Q(x)\vee S(x)$..........from two UE

7)$ R(x)\rightarrow\neg S(x)$..........from (3),UE

6)$(\neg P(y))$...............hypothesis for existential elimination EE

7)$\neg(P(x)\rightarrow Q(x)$..........(5) using material implication

8).$ \neg\neg Q(x)\rightarrow S(x)$.........(6) using material imlication

9)$Q(x)$...................hypothesis for conditional proof

10)$\neg Q(x)$................hypothesis for contradiction

11)$Q(x)\wedge\neg Q(x)$..............(9)and (10) using AI (addition introdaction)

12)$\neg\neg Q(x)$.................(10)to (11) contradiction

13)$S(x)$....................(8),(12) using Modus Ponens(MP)

14)$Q(x)\rightarrow S(x)$.........from (9) to(13) and using conditional proof

15)$\neg P(x)$.............hypothesis for conditional proof

16) $Q(x)$................using (15), (7) and MP

17)$S(x)$................using (14) and (16) and MP

18)Repeat process from steps (10) to (12) to end up with $\neg\neg S(x)$

19)$\neg\neg S(x)\rightarrow\neg R(x)$......(7) and using contrapositive

20) $\neg R(x)$.................(18),(19) using MP

21)$\neg P(x)\rightarrow\neg R(x)$.......from (15) to(20) and using conditional proof

22)$\forall x(\neg P(x)\rightarrow\neg R(x))$......from (21) and using universal introduction (UI)

23)$\neg P(y)\rightarrow\neg R(y))$............from(22) and using UE where we put x=y

24)$\neg R(y)$.................. (6),(24) and using MP

25)$\exists x(\neg R(x))$................from (24) and using existensial introduction EI

26) $\exists x(\neg R(x))$................from (4) and (6) to (25) and using EE

As you can see the general plan of the proof is to prove 1st $\forall x(\neg P(y)\rightarrow\neg R(y))$ and then using $\neg P(y)$. to prove $\exists\neg R(x)$ using EI and EE
1) Notice the changing of the variables from x to y and then back to x

Now to test your understanding start your own proof by hypothising $\neg P(x)$
and use my proof as help
You may use different rules of inference if you like
 

Similar threads

Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top