Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Symbolic Logic - Help

  1. Nov 22, 2004 #1
    Good evening. Would anybody in this room be able to help me with an SD+ question?
    My question is as follows:
    Show that the following set of sentences is inconsistent in SD or SD+:

    {(~C v (E & P)) (triple bar) B, ~E > ~C, ~(P & B) & ~(~P & ~B), B > C}
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 19, 2004 #2

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Don't know that this is quite what you're looking for, but consider this:

    [~C v (E & P)] > C (by substituting for B in 4, from the equivalence given in 1)

    [(~C v E) & (~C v P)] > C (By distribution)

    That line right there is the same as the argument:

    1. ~C v E
    2. ~C v P
    Therefore, C

    which can pretty easily be shown to be invalid. It's a roundabout method, but it should work. I'll leave it to you to write a rigorous proof of this.
     
  4. Dec 23, 2004 #3
    Loseyourname, you're only working with assumptions. Assumptions do not have to be tautologies. Like if I assume X -> Y, I am not claiming that X, therefore Y, is logically valid for every substitution of X and Y. Such a claim is false but the assumption X -> Y is certainly not inconsistent with itself.

    Marie, I don't know about the terms SP or SP+, so if there are special rules I am unaware of then this reply may not be right. But I have worked it through like this:

    (your premises)
    1. (~C v (E & P)) <--> B
    2. ~E --> ~C
    3. ~(P & B) & ~(~P & ~B)
    4. B --> C

    5. B <--> ~P (line 3)
    6. (~C v (E & P)) <--> ~P (lines 5, 1)
    7. E & P --> ~P
    8. ~P v ~(E & P)
    9. ~P v ~E v ~P
    10. ~P v ~E
    11. ~C --> B (line 1)
    12. ~C --> C (lines 4, 11)
    13. C (line 12)

    This is the main part. You can finish it from here. Of course, there may be a simpler way to do it than how I did it, and I didn't formally go into several steps, particularly 5, 7, and 13.
     
  5. Dec 29, 2004 #4
    Thank you!

    Hi

    Sorry for my late reply, but I just wanted to say thank you to both Loseyourname and Bartholomew for taking the time to muse over my question. Though I don't have the time right now to apply your solutions to my problem, I definitely will soon.

    Have a great New Year! :smile:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Symbolic Logic - Help
  1. Logic symbolism ? (Replies: 3)

Loading...