To anyone who knows formal logic, I've been having trouble with this proof:
I'm taking this logic course (PHL201) as an elective because I'd figured it'd be interesting and that it'd help me on the LSAT, which I'm planning to take in the near future.
Regardless...
Notation will be as follows:
> = conditional (if, then). For example (A > B)
+ = and (Both A and B). For example (A + B)
∴ = therefore
Here it is:
1)((A > B) > C)
2)(C > (D + E))
∴ (B > D)
____________
3)asm: ~ (B > D)
4) B [from 3]
5) ~D [from 3]
That's as far as I've gotten.
As a refresher, some of the inference rules are De Morgan, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens etc.
I'm taking this logic course (PHL201) as an elective because I'd figured it'd be interesting and that it'd help me on the LSAT, which I'm planning to take in the near future.
Regardless...
Notation will be as follows:
> = conditional (if, then). For example (A > B)
+ = and (Both A and B). For example (A + B)
∴ = therefore
Here it is:
1)((A > B) > C)
2)(C > (D + E))
∴ (B > D)
____________
3)asm: ~ (B > D)
4) B [from 3]
5) ~D [from 3]
That's as far as I've gotten.
As a refresher, some of the inference rules are De Morgan, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens etc.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=269847&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire