Symbolic Logic, Proof with Conditional

Click For Summary
Step 6 in the proof cannot be concluded as FrontOf(d, e) from step 4, indicating a need for further clarification. Another quantifier elimination may be necessary to establish that Cube(e) and Dodec(d) imply FrontOf(d, e). There is also a suggestion that the order of variables e and y in step 4 may have been mixed up, which could affect the validity of the argument. Ensuring the correct order and addressing the quantifier elimination are crucial for the proof's integrity. The discussion emphasizes the importance of precise logical structure in symbolic logic proofs.
jehello
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
2gwdguo.jpg


Any advice on how to make step 6 check out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem is you can't conclude
FrontOf(d, e)​
from step 4, isn't it?
Then isn't another quantifier elimination all you need (i.e. prove that Cube(e) and Dodec(d) implies FrontOf(d, e)) ?

Also I'm wondering if you mixed up the order of e and y in step 4.
 

Thread 'Distance between a Clock's hands when the distance is increasing most rapidly'

Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?
View full post »

Similar threads

Logical Proof: Theorem (Truths of Logic) A iff ~~A
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad On the meaning of logical implication within specific context/models
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Undergrad Deductive proof in logic formal systems
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
699
MHB Request to Solve Symbolic Logic Questions Using Strengthened Conditional Proof
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Syntactic vs semantic logical consequence (entailment)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Proving well ordering principle from Peano Axioms
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Direct Proof that every zero of p(T) is an eigenvalue of T
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Unique Identities: Proving O₁ = O₂ in Theorem for Proof of Identity
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Do these two statements imply an underlying induction proof?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
[Discrete] Prove that |nZ| = |Z| for any postive integer n
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K