MHB Stuck on Derivation (Natural Deduction)

  • Thread starter Thread starter DragonPoopa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Stuck
DragonPoopa
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
1. ((N ⊃ P) ⊃ (I ⊃ P)) ⊃ ((P ⊃ I) ⊃ P) P

2. (I v X) ≡ (R ⊃ P) P

3. R ⊃ (I ⊃ (N ^ V)) P

4. R A

5. Reiteration of 3

6. I ⊃ (N ^ V) 3,4 ⊃E

7. I A
8. I v X 7, vI
9. Reiteration of 2
10. R ⊃ P 8,9 ≡E
11. R 4R
12. P 10,11 ⊃E
13. I ⊃ P 7-12 ⊃I

14. N ⊃ P A
15. I ⊃ P 13 R
16. (N ⊃ P) ⊃ (I ⊃ P) 14-15 ⊃I

17. Reiteration of 1

18. (P ⊃ I) ⊃ P 16, 17 ⊃E

Conclusion: R ⊃ (X v V)

Hello!

I got up to this point in my work. I realized that I have to somehow get I v V out to the scope line of R, but I am not sure how to go about this. I am thinking of (P -> I) or (R -> P), but I don't know how from there.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to the forum.

Apparently, this requires a proof by contradiction or the law of excluded middle. So we assume that R and ~(X v V). The latter implies ~X and ~V. From ~V follows ~(N /\ V), and I -> N /\ V gives ~I. Together with ~X this implies ~(I \/ X), which by the second premise gives R /\ ~P. ~I implies I -> P and (N -> P) -> (I -> P), so from the first premise we have (P -> I) -> P. Then ~P proves P -> I, and we have P and ~P, a contradiction.

I am not sure if there is a shorter proof. I generated a formal proof in a proof assistant program, but it is also not very short.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top