Im stuck and having trouble with ￢P ∨ Q Prove: P → Q Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Help with simple deductive proofInvalid arguments with true premises and true conclusionWhat are the important effects of studying logic?If F is a sufficient condition for G, is lacking G a sufficient condition for lacking F?How to prove (P ∧ ¬Q) ↔ ¬(P → Q)Prove (¬P ∨ Q) ↔ (P → Q)How to prove the tautology ¬(P↔¬P) using Fitch?How do you prove B v A |- A v B?I have trouble understanding this fallacy: “If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A.”trouble with rules of inference practice problems
A journey... into the MIND
Can this water damage be explained by lack of gutters and grading issues?
Why aren't road bike wheels tiny?
How to keep bees out of canned beverages?
How do I deal with an erroneously large refund?
Why does my GNOME settings mention "Moto C Plus"?
Can I ask an author to send me his ebook?
How to break 信じようとしていただけかも知れない into separate parts?
What is the ongoing value of the Kanban board to the developers as opposed to management
What is the difference between 准时 and 按时?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
Is my guitar’s action too high?
"Destructive force" carried by a B-52?
Can the van der Waals coefficients be negative in the van der Waals equation for real gases?
Are Flameskulls resistant to magical piercing damage?
Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?
Why did Bronn offer to be Tyrion Lannister's champion in trial by combat?
Does Prince Arnaud cause someone holding the Princess to lose?
Normal Operator || T^2|| = ||T||^2
Pointing to problems without suggesting solutions
How to mute a string and play another at the same time
FME Console for testing
Why these surprising proportionalities of integrals involving odd zeta values?
Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll?
Im stuck and having trouble with ￢P ∨ Q Prove: P → Q
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Help with simple deductive proofInvalid arguments with true premises and true conclusionWhat are the important effects of studying logic?If F is a sufficient condition for G, is lacking G a sufficient condition for lacking F?How to prove (P ∧ ¬Q) ↔ ¬(P → Q)Prove (¬P ∨ Q) ↔ (P → Q)How to prove the tautology ¬(P↔¬P) using Fitch?How do you prove B v A |- A v B?I have trouble understanding this fallacy: “If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A.”trouble with rules of inference practice problems
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ￢P ∨ Q?
logic
asked 5 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
111
New contributor
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ￢P ∨ Q?
logic
asked 5 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
111
New contributor
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ￢P ∨ Q?
logic
asked 5 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
111
New contributor
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am having trouble with this problem as I have just started doing logic. Is this the same as P → Q Prove: ￢P ∨ Q?
logic
logic
asked 5 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
111
New contributor
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
111
New contributor
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
111
New contributor
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
111
asked 5 hours ago
Hamish DochertyHamish Docherty
111
111
New contributor
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
2
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ￢P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ￢P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,04418
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62058%2fim-stuck-and-having-trouble-with-%25ef%25bf%25a2p-%25e2%2588%25a8-q-prove-p-%25e2%2586%2592-q%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ￢P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ￢P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,04418
add a comment |
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ￢P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ￢P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,04418
add a comment |
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ￢P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ￢P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,04418
In a natural deduction system (if that is what you are using) to prove a conditional, such as is P → Q, you must use a Conditional
Proof.
This takes the form of assuming the antecedent (that is P) aiming to derive the consequent (that is Q) through valid inferences (also using the premises; that is ￢P ∨ Q). Then discharging the assumption allow the deduction of the conditional (that is P → Q).
Now to prove Q from an assumption of P and the premise of ￢P ∨ Q, either use Disjunctive Syllogism, or a Proof by Cases.
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,04418
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,04418
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,04418
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,04418
1,04418
add a comment |
add a comment |
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hamish Docherty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62058%2fim-stuck-and-having-trouble-with-%25ef%25bf%25a2p-%25e2%2588%25a8-q-prove-p-%25e2%2586%2592-q%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Which text book are you using? An online proof checker and text book may be helpful as supplementary material: proofs.openlogicproject.org
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago