Jump to content

How to start a formal proof in symbolic logic?


Maggie

Recommended Posts

When it comes to formal proofs I have no idea how to even start it. When do I use a subproof and how to use it? Can someone please explain to me when to use a subproof and how to start a formal proof? Please and thank you.

This is what I have so far...and I have no idea what to do next...

post-102868-0-55787100-1387413977_thumb.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what that program is, but I'm assuming

[math]\neg F \implies (G \vee H)[/math],

[math](F \vee G) \implies (I \wedge J)[/math], and

[math] I \iff \neg K[/math]

 

are propositions you can take to be true, and thus your goal is to use these to show that [math]K \implies H[/math]. Is that correct?

Is the problem that you don't see how to work from K to H, or is it that you're not sure how to express the proof using this program?

Edited by John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, the program is called Fitch.

And my problem is I do not know how to start a proof...I don't know what subproof does. If I was asked to write the proof out on a piece of paper I would have no idea how. Using the program helps to check my steps as you can see above. However I just don't understand the proof process. And yes, I don't see how to work from K to H...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. Well, the way a proof works in general is we start with some assumptions, and using new conclusions we can logically deduce from those assumptions (and further conclusions we can logically deduce from those conclusions, and so on), we work towards some end goal.

So for this proof, our assumption is that [math]K[/math] is true. We also have that [math]I \iff \neg K[/math]. Since [math]K[/math] is true, what do we know about [math]\neg K[/math]? And what does this tell us, given our biconditional?

Edited by John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You've got the assumptions listed above, and you're assuming K is true. Starting with the assumption that K is true, you have to reason your way through the other assumptions you have to arrive at the conclusion that H is also true. This will prove that K implies H.

So far, we've seen that since K is true, ~K must be false. And since ~K is false, I must also be false. Now given that I is false, what can we conclude, given the various other statements we assume to be true?

Edited by John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.