Symbolic Logic Homework Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAlli
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Homework Logic
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around challenges faced in symbolic logic homework, specifically in applying various inference and replacement rules. The first problem involves proving the conclusion ((A • B) ⊃ C) from the premise (A ⊃ C). The participant attempts to use the exportation rule and explores Modus Tollens but feels stuck in a cycle without a clear path to isolate variables. The second problem concerns deriving ~A from the premise (A ⊃ ~A). The participant considers using conditional exchange and DeMorgan's laws but struggles with how to manipulate the expressions effectively to reach a contradiction. Additionally, there is a completed proof that raises questions about the correct application of conditional exchange, particularly regarding the transformation of expressions involving negations. The responses emphasize the importance of understanding the rules thoroughly and suggest that practice is essential for mastering symbolic logic. The mention of a "distributive" law over implications hints at a necessary concept for solving the first problem.
TheAlli
Hi! I was kind of struggling with a couple of the problems on my symbolic logic homework, and any help/hints/etc. would be very much appreciated!

The same symbolizations are used as in Klenk's "Understanding Symbolic Logic" book:

• = dot, meaning "and", as in p • q
v = wedge, meaning "either/or", as in p v q
≡ = triple bar, meaning "if and only if", as in p ≡ q
~ = tilde, meaning "not", as in ~p
⊃ = horseshoe, meaning "if ___, then ___", as in p ⊃ q
The inference rules (rules that must apply to an entire line in any proof created) we've learned so far are Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Hypothetical Syllogism, Simplification, Conjunction, Dilemma, Disjunctive Syllogism, and Addition. The replacement rules (rules that may apply to only part of a line in any proof created) we've learned are Double Negation, Duplication, Commutation, Association, Contrapostion, DeMorgan's, Biconditional Exchange, Conditional Exchange, Distribution, and Exportation. A summary of the rules is given here: http://www.yuksel.org/e/philosophy/logic/19rules.htm

The first problem I was having issues with presents this premise and conclusion (the Pr. indicating that I justify making that line by it being a premise of the given problem, with the conclusion following the slash):

1. (A ⊃ C) Pr. / ((A • B) ⊃ C)

Since I was told that working backward is a good tactic, I started with the conclusion and noted that, by the exportation rule, it is equivalent to ((A ⊃ (B ⊃ C)). Because B must be added on by the rule of addition, I must be able to prove that either A or C, or maybe ~A/~C is true. I tried using contraposition to get ((A ⊃ (~C ⊃ ~B)), then changing to ((A • ~C) ⊃ ~B), but I'm not sure how to use Modus Tollens and get (A • ~C) by itself since that would require getting ~~B, which can't happen as far as I know without getting one of the other variables anyway. So I'm stuck in a bit of a vicious cycle.

Another problem that's giving me issues is:

1. (A ⊃ ~A) Pr. / ~A

I thought using conditional exchange would be good here, since you could start from the premise and get (~A v ~~A) or get the same by working backward from the conclusion using Conditional Exchange, and this would be equivalent to (~A v A) due to Double Negation. From there I tried DeMorgan's and got ~(A • ~A), but it's sort of "trapped" within the tilde even though I know replacement rules can still apply to any individual part (for example, I could still change it to ~(~~A • ~A) by Double Negation). Basically, I need to get A/~A by itself and somehow that should work out a proof that contradicts itself.

One other thing, if I may; I completed this problem but am not sure if I'm misusing Conditional Exchange, and if I knew it could maybe help on the previous problem:

1. A Pr. / ~(A ⊃ ~B)
2. B Pr.
3. ~~A DN 1
4. ~~B DN 2
5. ~~A • ~~B Conj. 1, 2
6. ~(~A v ~B) DeM 5
7. B v ~A Add. 2
8. ~B DS 3, 7
7. ~(A ⊃ ~B) CE 6

Since Conditional Exchange allows going from (~p v q) to (p ⊃ q), I know usually ~(~A v ~B) would not translate into the conditional because the substitution doesn't fit the form without assuming that ~B stands for q while A substitutes for p. Is this fine as long as ~B has been proven?

Again, thanks so much in advance and sorry for making my first post a homework-related one. Symbolic logic is definitely not my strong suit!

EDIT: Sorry about the spacing issue on the proofs, for some reason I can't put more than one space between the line and the justification.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
TheAlli said:
1. (A ⊃ C) Pr. / ((A • B) ⊃ C)

It's a two-liner proof in my head. You need a "distributive" law of • over ⊃. That's about it.

It's just a lot of hard work getting the rules right in your head, like your first arithmetic courses. I am not going to comment on it too much, you need to rely on the didactical skills of your professors and your own skills here. Not a lot to do except for work your way through all of the exercises.

(The "distributive" law you need should be obvious to you, probably is a side lemma, and probably can be proven by rewriting ⊃ to another form.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please post this in the proper homework section.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K