Symbolic Logic, Proof with Conditional

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the proof of conditional statements in symbolic logic, specifically addressing the challenge of concluding FrontOf(d, e) from earlier steps. The participants highlight the necessity of an additional quantifier elimination to establish that Cube(e) and Dodec(d) imply FrontOf(d, e). There is also a concern regarding the potential mix-up of variables in step 4, particularly the order of e and y.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of symbolic logic and its notation
  • Familiarity with quantifier elimination techniques
  • Knowledge of conditional proofs in mathematical logic
  • Experience with variable manipulation in logical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study quantifier elimination methods in symbolic logic
  • Explore conditional proof strategies in mathematical logic
  • Review variable ordering and its implications in logical proofs
  • Practice constructing proofs involving multiple quantifiers
USEFUL FOR

Students of logic, mathematicians, and anyone involved in formal proof construction and analysis in symbolic logic.

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.
 

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
4K
Undergrad Deductive proof in logic formal systems
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
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
3K
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
Why Does an Extra Factor Appear in My Calculus Chain Rule Proof?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K