Solving a Logic Problem: Prove ~(A * F)

  • Thread starter Thread starter particlepat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a logic problem where the goal is to prove ~(A * F) given the premises ~(A * G), ~(A * E), and G v E. The user attempts to apply DeMorgan's theorem to simplify the negated conjunctions, resulting in ~A v ~G and ~A v ~E. However, they express confusion about how to proceed from these simplifications to reach the desired conclusion. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding logical rules and the application of DeMorgan's theorem in this context. Ultimately, the user seeks guidance on proving that A is false using the provided rules.
particlepat
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone I'm new to the forums and I came here because I completely stumped. This is basic logic but for some reason I'm having trouble with this one.

Homework Statement


1) ~(A * G)
2) ~(A * E)
3) G v E / prove ~(A * F)

As I go through and show each step I have to give which rule is being applied.

Homework Equations


Rules I can use
Modus Ponens MP
Modus Tollens MT
Disjuctive Syllogism DS
Simplification Simp
Hypothetical Syllogism HS
Constructive Dilemma CD
Conjunction Conj
Addition Add
DeMorgan DM
Associativity Assoc
and Distribution Dist

Rules I can't use
Transposition
Implication
Exportation
Tautology

The Attempt at a Solution


The first time I proved it but after reading the instructions I realized I'm not supposed to use tautology or material implications. It may be as simple as not knowing exactly how to simplify something like ~(A * G) when it's when the whole equation is negated.


Any help would be great.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not really an expert on all of this logic terminology, but isn't simplifying ~(A * G) DeMorgan?
 
Dick said:
I'm not really an expert on all of this logic terminology, but isn't simplifying ~(A * G) DeMorgan?

right so assuming I did the following:

1) ~(A * G)
2) ~(A * E)
3) G v E /need to prove ~(A * F)
4) ~A v ~G because DM on line 1
5) ~A v ~E because DM on line 2


This is about where I get stuck...
 
particlepat said:
right so assuming I did the following:

1) ~(A * G)
2) ~(A * E)
3) G v E /need to prove ~(A * F)
4) ~A v ~G because DM on line 1
5) ~A v ~E because DM on line 2


This is about where I get stuck...

Like I said, I don't know logic formalism very well. But it's pretty clear you want to prove A is false. Can you do that using one of those rules?
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top