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

  • Thread starter Thread starter particlepat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a logic problem involving negations and the application of specific logical rules. The original poster is tasked with proving ~(A * F) given certain premises, including ~(A * G) and ~(A * E), alongside a disjunction G v E.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply DeMorgan's laws to simplify the negated conjunctions but expresses uncertainty about the implications of their simplifications. Some participants question the application of DeMorgan's laws and the overall approach to proving the desired statement.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, exploring the application of logical rules. There is recognition of the need to prove that A is false, but the discussion remains open-ended without a clear consensus on the next steps or solutions.

Contextual Notes

The original poster has constraints on the rules they can use, explicitly stating which logical rules are permissible and which are not, which adds complexity to their attempts at a solution.

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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K