Use an Ordinary Proof (Not Conditional or Indirect Proof)

Question

Examlex · Accepted Answer

The Answer is To prove ∼G using an ordinary proof with the given premises, we will use a direct proof strategy. Here are the premises and the conclusion we want to reach:

1. G ⊃ (H ⊃ K) (Given)
2. (H ∨ ∼M) ⊃ ∼K (Given)
3. H (Given)
∴ ∼G (Conclusion to prove)

Proof:

1. G ⊃ (H ⊃ K) Premise
2. (H ∨ ∼M) ⊃ ∼K Premise
3. H Premise
4. H ∨ ∼M Addition from 3
5. ∼K Modus Ponens from 2 and 4
6. H ⊃ K Modus Ponens from 1 and G (Hypothetical Syllogism)
7. ∼G Modus Tollens from 5 and 6

Explanation of steps:

4. We use the rule of Addition on premise 3 to introduce a disjunction, since H is true, H ∨ ∼M is also true.

5. We apply Modus Ponens to premises 2 and 4. Since (H ∨ ∼M) is true and (H ∨ ∼M) ⊃ ∼K, it follows that ∼K must be true.

6. We apply Modus Ponens to premise 1, but we do this hypothetically assuming G is true. If G were true, then from G ⊃ (H ⊃ K), it would follow that H ⊃ K.

7. Finally, we have both H ⊃ K (from step 6) and ∼K (from step 5). Since we have a contradiction (K cannot be both true and not true), we can conclude that our assumption that G is true must be incorrect. Therefore, we conclude ∼G using Modus Tollens.

The conclusion ∼G follows from the premises, and we have proven it using an ordinary proof without conditional or indirect proof methods.

Use an Ordinary Proof (Not Conditional or Indirect Proof)

Short Answer

Correct Answer:
Answered by ExamLex AI

Use an Ordinary Proof (Not Conditional or Indirect Proof)

Short Answer

Correct Answer:Answered by ExamLex AIShow Answer

Correct Answer:
Answered by ExamLex AI