The problem presented in the image appears to be a formal logic problem, likely dealing with propositional logic and inference. Here's a breakdown of the premises (P) and the goal (K):

Premises:

1. $P1: \neg [(a \lor b) \to \neg c]$
2. $P2: \neg d \lor \neg e \lor \neg c$
3. $P3: a \to d$
4. $P4: e$

Goal:

$K: b$ (Conclusion or Knowledge we're trying to prove)

Translation of the premises into a more standard form:

1. $P1: \neg [(a \lor b) \to \neg c]$: This can be rewritten using the implication rule. The implication $(a \lor b) \to \neg c$ is logically equivalent to $\neg(a \lor b) \lor \neg c$. Thus, $P1$ becomes $\neg [\neg(a \lor b) \lor \neg c]$, and further simplification can be done.

2. $P2: \neg d \lor \neg e \lor \neg c$: This is a disjunction that essentially states "at least one of $\neg d$, $\neg e$, or $\neg c$ is true."

3. $P3: a \to d$: This is a simple implication.

4. $P4: e$: This is just the fact that $e$ is true.

Strategy:

We need to use the premises to prove $b$, which is $K$. A potential strategy is to explore the implications of each premise and see how $b$ can be inferred. It will involve simplifying the logical structure and applying logical equivalences (such as Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, or Disjunctive Syllogism).

Would you like me to proceed with detailed steps in solving this formal logic problem?