Math Problem Statement

hw14.3

Construct a proof for the argument: P ↔ ¬Q ∴ ¬(P ↔ Q)

1 P ↔ ¬Q

hw14.4

Construct a proof for the argument: ¬(P ↔ Q) ∴ P → ¬Q

1 ¬(P ↔ Q)

hw14.6

Construct a proof for the argument: Fb ∨ ∀xGx ∴ ∀x(Fb ∨ Gx)

1 Fb ∨ ∀xGx

Using the checker:

Rule names (full and abbreviated)

modus ponens ->E

modus tollens MT

modus tollendo ponens DS

double negation DNE

addition vI

adjunction ^I

simplification ^E

bicondition <->I

equivalence <->E

repeat Rep

conditional derivation ->I

reductio ad absurdum RAA

universal instantiation AE

universal derivation AI

existential instantiation EE

existential generalization EI

identity introduction =I

substitution of identicals =E

Solution

Let's break down the problems one by one and construct formal proofs for each.

Problem 14.3

Argument:
P¬QP \leftrightarrow \neg Q¬(PQ)\neg(P \leftrightarrow Q)

Goal: Construct a proof for ¬(PQ)\neg(P \leftrightarrow Q).

Proof for 14.3:

  1. P¬QP \leftrightarrow \neg Q (Premise)
  2. PQP \leftrightarrow Q assumes that PP and QQ have the same truth value (Assumption for reductio ad absurdum).
  3. By the biconditional elimination on line 2, we have PQP \rightarrow Q and QPQ \rightarrow P.
  4. From P¬QP \leftrightarrow \neg Q (line 1), we also have P¬QP \rightarrow \neg Q and ¬QP\neg Q \rightarrow P.
  5. Using modus ponens on lines 2 and 4, QQ contradicts ¬Q\neg Q, leading to a contradiction.
  6. Since assuming PQP \leftrightarrow Q leads to a contradiction, we conclude ¬(PQ)\neg(P \leftrightarrow Q). (RAA)

Thus, the argument is valid.


Problem 14.4

Argument:
¬(PQ)\neg(P \leftrightarrow Q)P¬QP \rightarrow \neg Q

Goal: Construct a proof for P¬QP \rightarrow \neg Q.

Proof for 14.4:

  1. ¬(PQ)\neg(P \leftrightarrow Q) (Premise)
  2. Assume PP (Assumption for conditional derivation).
  3. From line 1, PQP \leftrightarrow Q is false, meaning PP and QQ have opposite truth values.
  4. If PP is true, then QQ must be false, i.e., ¬Q\neg Q.
  5. Therefore, P¬QP \rightarrow \neg Q by conditional derivation (I)(\rightarrow I).

Thus, the argument is valid.


Problem 14.6

Argument:
FbxGxFb \lor \forall x Gxx(FbGx)\forall x (Fb \lor Gx)

Goal: Construct a proof for x(FbGx)\forall x (Fb \lor Gx).

Proof for 14.6:

  1. FbxGxFb \lor \forall x Gx (Premise)
  2. To derive x(FbGx)\forall x (Fb \lor Gx), assume xx is arbitrary.
  3. Since FbFb holds for a particular bb, it follows that FbGxFb \lor Gx holds for any xx.
  4. From line 3, FbGxFb \lor Gx holds for arbitrary xx.
  5. By universal derivation (AI), x(FbGx)\forall x (Fb \lor Gx).

Thus, the argument is valid.


These proofs use standard logical rules, such as biconditional elimination, reductio ad absurdum, conditional derivation, and universal instantiation.

Questions:

  1. How does reductio ad absurdum work in proofs like 14.3?
  2. Can the biconditional elimination rule always lead to a contradiction?
  3. Why is universal derivation key in proving arguments like 14.6?
  4. How can modus tollens help simplify contradictions in proofs?
  5. What is the difference between conditional derivation and modus ponens?

Tip:

When working with biconditionals, remember they imply two conditional statements in both directions. Always check both implications for consistency.

Ask a new question for Free

By Image

Drop file here or Click Here to upload

Math Problem Analysis

Mathematical Concepts

Propositional Logic
Biconditional Elimination
Reductio Ad Absurdum
Universal Quantification

Formulas

Biconditional: P ↔ Q ↔ (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P)
Modus Ponens: If P → Q and P, then Q
Modus Tollens: If P → Q and ¬Q, then ¬P
Universal Generalization: ∀x(P(x)) if P(x) holds for arbitrary x

Theorems

Biconditional Elimination
Conditional Derivation
Universal Derivation

Suitable Grade Level

Undergraduate