Results 1 to 8 of 8

Math Help - Rules Of Inference

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    25

    Rules Of Inference

    Use the rules of inference to show that the following argument is valid.

    (pvq)→(~qΛr)
    (~qΛr)→~(~pΛs)
    pvq
    s
    q→~p
    ------------------
    ~q


    OK, so in order to show that it is valid, do I need to make a truth table? This just seems so vague to me.
    Last edited by ezwind72; November 5th 2008 at 06:33 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    25
    ~(~pΛs) would be the same as (pv~s), correct?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by ezwind72 View Post
    Use the rules of inference to show that the following argument is valid.

    (pvg)→(~qΛr)
    (~qΛr)→~(~pΛs)
    pvq
    s
    q→~p
    ------------------
    ~q


    OK, so in order to show that it is valid, do I need to make a truth table? This just seems so vague to me.



    1) (pvq)---->(~q^r)........................................ass umption

    2) (~qΛr)→~(~pΛs).................................... ......assumption


    3)pvq............................................. .................assumption


    4) s................................................. ...............assumption


    5)q→~p............................................ ................assumption


    6) (~qΛr)....................................(3),(1) , M.Ponens


    7) ~(~pΛs)...................................(2),(6), M.Ponens


    8) pv~s..........................................(7), De Morgan


    9) s---->p..........................................(8),ma terial implication ,or relation between connectives

    10) p................................................. .......(4),(9), M.Ponens



    11)p---->~q..........................................(5),a nd contrapositive law



    12) ~q................................................ .....(10),(11),M.Ponens
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    25
    So these are the rules you gave me? So how does that prove it is valid? Also, what are the numbers in the () before the rule you have written? Thanks for your help!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by ezwind72 View Post
    So these are the rules you gave me? So how does that prove it is valid? Also, what are the numbers in the () before the rule you have written? Thanks for your help!

    Take for example line 6 where i have written...


    .......................... (3),(1) ,M.Ponens. It means i used the assumption

    (pvq)---->(~q^r). and the assumption,


    pvq and the rule of M.Ponens to get line 6 i.e ~q^r.


    The general form of M.Ponens rule is:


    A---->B and A THEN this implies B ,AND if we let A=(pvq) , B=(~q^r),using the rule we get (~qvr).

    You also asked for the validity of the proof .Proofs in propositional calculus are pure formal proofs where every line of the proof can be easily checked and double checked and if no mistake is found then the proof is correct.

    Unlikely with ordinary mathematical proofs where if one is asked for its validity or correctness one must rely on the superiority of the instructor .

    Also in propositional logic you can check the validity of the argument by writing the truth table of the argument and if you get a tautology then the argument is valid hence provable.

    In our case the truth table of the conditional:



    ([(pvg)→(~qΛr)] & [(~qΛr)→~(~pΛs)] & [pvq] & s & [ q→~p])------> ~q


    should be a tautology

















    .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    25
    poutsos.B, I think I understand what you are saying. The only step I don't understand how you got is step 9. Could you please explain that? Thanks again!!
    Last edited by ezwind72; November 5th 2008 at 08:52 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by ezwind72 View Post
    poutsos.B, I think I understand what you are saying. The only step I don't understand how you got is step 9. Could you please explain that? Thanks again!!
    pv~s is equivalent to ~svp (by commutativity of propositions AVB <===>BvA) ,~svp is equivalent to s---->p (by material implication law or as is otherwised called ,relation between connectives).


    The general form of material implication is ~AvB <====> A---->B
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    25
    OK, I fully understand what you did. Thanks very much for all your help!!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Help on Proofs (Rules of Inference)
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 25th 2010, 06:53 PM
  2. Rules of Inference
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 11th 2009, 10:36 PM
  3. Rules of Inference... I think
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 17th 2009, 03:53 PM
  4. HELP: Rules of Inference
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 8th 2009, 09:08 AM
  5. Rules of Inference Help
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 8th 2009, 07:25 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum