Mastering Logical Equivalence Proofs: (P<->Q) ⊣ ⊢ ~(P<->~Q)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the logical equivalence between the expressions ~(P<->Q) and (P<->~Q) using formal proof techniques. The user expresses difficulty in deriving the necessary implications and suggests using a truth table as an alternative method. Key rules of inference mentioned include conditional introduction, biconditional definition, and negation introduction/elimination. The conversation highlights the variability in terminology across different textbooks regarding logical inference rules.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logical equivalence and biconditional statements
  • Familiarity with formal proof techniques in propositional logic
  • Knowledge of rules of inference such as conditional introduction and negation elimination
  • Experience with truth tables for logical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the axioms and rules of inference in propositional logic
  • Learn how to construct and interpret truth tables for logical equivalences
  • Research the definitions and applications of negation introduction and elimination in formal proofs
  • Explore resources that standardize logical inference terminology across different textbooks
USEFUL FOR

Students of logic, mathematicians, and educators seeking to master formal proofs and logical equivalences in propositional logic.

Hazzardman
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
~(P<->Q) ⊣ ⊢ (P<->~Q)

I'm suppose to write the proof for this equivalence but I can't figure it in either direction
The closest I got was (P->~Q) from ~(P<->Q) but I can't figure anything else out
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean to show that ##\neg (P \leftrightarrow Q) \equiv (P \leftrightarrow \neg Q)##? Why not just use a truth table?
 
I need to do it by formal proof
this is as far as I got but I can't figure out how to determine the necessay ~Q->P or how to do it in the opposite direction.
Code:
~(P<->Q)                want:P<->~Q
----------------------------------
|P                      want: ~Q
|-------------------------------
||Q                     reductio
||--------------------------------
|||P                    want: Q
|||--------------------------------
|||Q                    reiterate 3
||P->Q                  conditional introduction4-5
|||Q                    want: P
|||-------------------------------------------
|||P                    reiterate 2
||Q->P                  conditional introduction7-8
||P<->Q                 Biconditional definition 6,9
||~(P<>Q)               reiterate 1
|~Q                     indirect proof 3-11
P->~Q                   conditional introduction2-12
 
To answer, we need to know which axioms and rules of inference that are allowed in this context. This can differ in different textbooks.
 
conjunction introduction
disjunction introduction
conjunction elimination
disjunction elimination
conditional elimination
biconditional elimination
negation introduction/elimination proof
conditional introduction proof
bicondional definition
reiteration

these are all the rules I have learned
 
Unfortunately, the rules of logical inference don't all have standardized names. Their titles differ from textbook to textbook. Can you give a link to an article where those rules are written out?
 
I think I know what most of these rules are. But exactly how are negation introduction and elimination defined in your textbook?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
839
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K